BV  811  .H88 
Hughey,  G.  W.  (George 
Washington),  b.  1832 
The  Scriptural  mode  of 
Christian  baotism 


,':.4y' 


Rev.  G.  W.  HUGHEY,  A.M.,  D.D. 


THE  SCRIPTURAL  MODE 


OP 


CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM 


BY 


Rev.  G.  W.  Hughey,  A.M.,  D.D., 

St.  Louis  Conference,  Mkthodist  Kpiscopai,  Church. 


Author  of 


'Political  Romanism,"  "Christian  Rule  of  Faith,"  "Ingersollism," 
"Baptismal  Remission,"  "Infant  Baptism,"   "Divine  Author- 
ity OF  the  Christian  Sabbath,"  "Women  in  the  General 
Conference,"    "Remarkable   Experiences,    Inci- 
dents, and  Answers  to  Prayers,"  "Free- 
dom FROM  SiN,'»  Etc.,  Etc. 


1907. 


Copyright  1907,  by 

Rbv.  G.  W.  HUGHEY,  A.m.,  D.D., 

Galena,  Mo. 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction. 

Christianity  a  Universal  Religion. 

Hence  the  probability  that  its  rites,  ceremonies,  and  sacraments 
would  be  of  universal  application,  pp.  13-16.  A  Baptist  minister's 
idea  of  the  unphysiological  character  of  immersion  and  its  inappli- 
cability to  all  classes  and  conditions  of  the  human  race,  pp.  16-23. 

Chapter  I. 

The  Position  of  Immersionists. 

The  grounds  on  which  they  predicate  their  claim  for  immersion, 
pp.  24-25.  The  want  of  agreement  among  immersionists  in  regard 
to  the  meaning  of  haptidzo,  p.  25.  Carson  and  Campbell's  position, 
pp.  25-26.  Gale,  Morrell,  Cox,  and  Fuller's  position,  pp.  26-27. 
Conant's  position,  p.  28. 

Chapter  II. 

Our  Position  on  the  Meaning  of  "Baptidzo." 

Dr.  Dale's  position,  p.  30.  Drs.  Carson  and  Hinton  on  use,  pp. 
31-32.  Dr.  Dwight,  pp.  31-32.  Dr.  Albert  Barnes,  p.  32.  Prof. 
Porson,  p.  32.      Dr.  Richard  Robinson,  pp.  32-33.      Dr.  Gale,  p.  33. 

Chapter  III. 

"Bapto"  the  Root  of  "Baptidzo"  and  the  Lexicons. 

Classical  and  Scriptural  usages,  p.  34.  The  lexicons,  pp.  35-36. 
Classical  use:  Homer,  pp.  36-37;  iSschylus,  p.  38;  Aristophanes, 
p.  39;  Hippocrates,  pp.  39-40;  Plato,  p.  40;  Alcibiades,  p.  41; 
Aristotle,  p.  41;  Diodorus  Siculus,  p.  41;  Plutarch,  pp.  41-42; 
Marcus  Antoninus,  p.  42.  Carson's  classical  examples,  pp.  43-44. 
His  Scriptural  examples,  pp.  44-46.  Daniel  4:  33  and  5:  31,  p.  47. 
New  Testament  use,  pp.  47-48.     Greek  fathers,  pp.  48-49. 

Chapter  IV. 

"Baptidzo" — The  Lexicons. 

Carson's  admission,  pp.  51-52.  The  testimony  of  the  lexicons, 
pp.  52-60.     I^iddell  and  Scott,  pp.  60-63. 

V 


vi  CONTENTS. 

Chapter  V. 

The  Testimony  of  Commentators,  Critics,  and  Scholars. 

The  commentators,  pp.  64-65  Critics  and  scholars,  pp.  65-70. 
The  cyclopedias,  pp.  70-71. 

Chapter  VI. 

The  Classical  Use  of  "Daptidzo." 

Dr.  Carson  on  use,  pp.  72-73.  Dr.  George  Campbell  on  use,  pp. 
74-76.  Dr.  Hinton  on  use,  p.  77.  Dr.  Carson's  classical  examples, 
pp.  74-80.     Dr.  Conant's  examples,  pp.  82-97 

Chapter  VII. 

The  Use  of  "Baptidzo"  and  "Baptismos"  in  the  Septuagint,  the 
Apocrypha,  and  the  New  Testament  Where  John's 
Baptism  and  the  Christian  Ordinance 
Are  Not  Spoken  of. 

Dr.  Hinton,  p.  99.  Second  Kings  5:14,  pp  loo-ioi.  Judith 
12:7,  pp.  104-106.  Baptism  from  a  dead  body,  The  Wisdom  of 
Sirach  34:40,  pp.  107-111.  New  Testament  use:  Hebrews  9:  10, 
p.  II I ;  First  Corinthians  10:  1-2,  p.  113.  How  was  this  baptism 
performed,  pp.  115-117.  Rev.  J.  K.  vSpeer's  acknowledgment,  p, 
117.  Luke  11:  38  and  Mark  7:  3,  p.  118.  Mark  7:  4,  pp.  119-121. 
Christ's  baptism  of  sufferings,  Mark  10:  38-39  and  Luke  12:  50,  pp. 
122-125, 

Chapter  VIII. 

The  Force  and  Meaning  of  the  Prepositions  Used  with  "Baptidzo." 

The  meaning  of  eis,  pp.  127-129.  The  meaning  of  en,  pp.  129- 
130.     The  meaning  of  ek,  pp.  130-131.     The  meaning  of  apo,  p.  132' 

Chapter  IX. 

The  Use  the  Early  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  Made  of  "Baptidzo" 
and  "Baptismos." 

The  Greek  use»  p.  133.  Mr.  Campbell  on  dupto,  pp.  133-134. 
Dr.  Conant's  examples  from  the  Greek  fathers,  pp.  134-137.  Ex- 
amples from  Prof.  Moses  vStuart,  p.  137.  Conant's  examples  from 
Latin  fathers,  pp.  138-140. 

Chapter  X. 

John's  Baptism. 

The  baptism  of  John,  p.  141 ;  in  Jordan,  p.  142  •  in  Bethabara, 
pp.  142-143.  J.  vS.  vSweeney  on  "in  Bethabara,  pp.  143-144. 
Bethabara  the  ferry-boat,  pp.  144-145.  The  length  of  John's  min- 
istry, pp.  145-146.  Sprinkling  the  uniform  practice  among  the 
Jews  through  all  their  history,  pp.  146-151.     "Straightway  out  of 


CONTENTS.  vii 

the  water,"  p.  152.  Apo  in  Matthew  3:16  and  Mark  i :  10,  p.  152. 
"Away  from  the  water,"  p.  153.  Baptism  in  Enon,  p.  154.  John 
baptized  with  water,  p.  155.  Meaning  of  en — its  use  in  the  New 
Testament  and  Septuagint,  pp.  156-157.  Immersed  in  the  Holy- 
Ghost,  p.  158.  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  how  performed,  pp. 
159-160.  Mode  or  action  the  same  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  that  of  water,  Campbell's  position,  pp.  161-162. 

Chapter  XI. 

Apostolic  Baptism. 

The  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  pp.  163-165.  The 
Ethiopian  eunuch,  pp.  165-168.  Prof.  Moses  Stuart  on  the  case,  pp. 
169-172.  Plain  facts  in  the  case,  p.  172-174.  Paul's  baptism  in  the 
house  standing  up,  p.  175.  The  baptism  of  Cornelius,  his  house- 
hold, and  his  friends,  pp.  176-177.  The  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her 
household,  pp.  178-179.  The  baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his  family, 
pp.  180-182.  The  unity  of  the  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  of  water,  pp.  182-184, 

Chapter  XII 

Buried  in  Baptism. 

Two  baptisms  permanent  in  the  Church  of  God — the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  baptism  of  water,  pp.  185-187.  Buried 
into  Jesus  Christ — into  His  death,  pp.  188-189.  Prof.  Moses  Stuart 
on  Romans  6:  1-6  and  Colossians  2:  11-12,  pp.  1 91-193.  Baptism 
does  not  represent  death,  but  life,  pp.  195-196. 

Chapter  XIII. 

Baptism  a  Washing. 

A  washing  not  an  immersion,  pp.  198-199.  Dr.  Fairfield  on 
bathing,  pp.  200-203.  Mr.  Hazard  and  the  Jewish  rabbi,  p.  204. 
Washed  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  pp.  205-206,  The  real  washing 
from  sin  is  done  by  sprinkling,  pp.  207-208. 

Chapter  XIV. 

One  Lord,  One  Faith,  One  Baptism. 

Ephesians  4:2-6,  p.  209.  First  Corinthians  12:13,  p.  210. 
The  charge  that  we  practice  three  baptisms,  pp.  21 1-2 12.  Braden 
and  Hughey  debate,  p.  212. 

Chapter  XV. 

History  of  the  Mode  of  Baptism. 

Dr.  Mosheim's  statement,  p.  213.  Remarks  on  the  statement, 
pp.  213-214.  Professor  W.  G.  Williams'  statement,  p.  214  Monu- 
mental history  of  ancient  baptism,  pictures  of  ancient  baptism  and 


viii  CONTENTS. 


ancient  baptismal  fonts,  p.  215,  Dr.  Richard  Robinson,  of  Cam- 
bridge, Eng.,  Baptist,  pp.  215-216.  Remarks  on  Dr.  Robinson,  pp. 
217-218.  Mr.  Cote  on  baptism  and  baptisteries,  pp.  219-221. 
Picture  of  the  baptism  of  Christ  in  the  Chapel  of  the  Baptistery  in 
the  Catacombs,  pp.  223-224,  Other  pictures  of  the  baptism  of 
Christ,  pp.  225-226.  Other  baptisms,  p.  228.  The  baptism  of 
Romanus  by  St.  Lawrence,  p.  229.  Other  baptisms  outside  of 
churches,  p.  231.  Baptism  of  Constantine  the  Great,  p.  232. 
Baptism  of  the  Lombard  king  and  queen,  p.  233.  Remarks  on 
these  pictures,  pp.  233-235.  Lactantius,  p.  235.  Aurelius  Pru- 
dentius,  p.  235.  Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Nola,  p.  236.  St.  Bernard, 
pp.  236-237.  Testimony  of  the  twelfth  century,  p.  237.  Baptismal 
fonts,  p.  237.  Evidence  from  the  Catacombs,  pp.  237-238.  Bap- 
tized with  his  own  tears,  p.  239.  Justin  Martyr,  pp.  240-243. 
Teachings  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  p.  244.  Barnabas,  p.  245.  Sim- 
ilitudes of  Hermas,  p.  247.  Irenseus,  p.  248.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, p  249.  Tertullian,  p.  254.  On  tradition,  pp.  255-256. 
On  baptism  by  sprinkling,  pp.  257-258.  TertuUian's  use  of  lingo, 
definitions  by  the  lexicons,  pp.  260-262,  Cyprian,  p.  264.  He  de- 
clares sprinkling  valid  baptism  and  Scriptural,  pp.  264-266.  Origen, 
p.  267.  Eusebius,  p.  268.  Bassilades  baptized  in  prison,  p.  268. 
Panegyric  on  the  Church  at  Tyre,  p.  269.  Augustine,  p.  269.  So- 
zomen,  pp.  270-272.  Gennadius,  p.  273.  Severus,  p.  274.  Modem 
Greek  Church,  pp.  274-275.  Rev.  Pliny  Fisk,  p,  275.  Dr.  Kurtz, 
p.  276.  The  Waldenses,  p.  276.  Christians  of  Mesopotamia,  p.  277. 
Descend  into  the  water,  p.  278.  Practices  during  the  Dark  Ages, 
p.  278.  The  claim  of  immersion ists  that  unimmersed  persons  were 
inhibited  holy  orders,  pp.  278-279.  Novatian,  pp.  279-280.  The 
early  Church  not  an  immersionist  Church,  p.  281.  How  immersion 
was  introduced,  pp.  282-283. 


PREFACE. 


Why  another  book  on  ' '  Baptism  "  ?  The  subject  has 
been  discussed  for  hundreds  of  years,  and  thousands  of 
volumes  have  been  written  upon  it,  and  the  subject  is  still 
unsettled.  This  is  all  true,  and  yet  there  is  no  subject 
that  has  more  interest  in  it  to  the  people  in  general  than 
this  much-discussed  subject.  There  is  no  discussion  on 
any  theological  question,  especially  in  the  rural  com- 
munities, that  will  draw  such  crowds  and  create  such  in- 
terest as  a  discussion  on  the  subject  of  "Baptism."  The 
reason  the  author  has  for  the  publication  of  this  book  may 
be  stated  as  follows :  On  my  first  charge,  Raleigh  Circuit, 
Southern  Illinois  Conference,  in  August,  1853,  when  I  was 
but  twenty-one  years  of  age,  I  had  a  debate  with  a  very 
prominent  Baptist  minister  in  that  part  of  the  State  on 
the  subject  and  mode  of  "Baptism."  We  discussed  "In- 
fant Baptism"  two  days  and  a  half,  and  the  mode  half  a 
day,  and  he  left  the  field  without  replying  to  my  third 
speech.  That  gave  me  quite  a  reputation  as  a  debater, 
and  when  such  work  had  to  be  done  in  all  that  country,  I 
was  generally  sent  for  to  do  it.  As  a  result,  I  had  to  meet 
the  champions  of  immersion  of  the  West,  such  as  J.  Cole, 
Baptist,  and  J.  S.  Sweeny,  J.  K.  Speer,  Dr.  J.  H.  Lucas, 
Clarke  Braden,  and  W.  B.  F.  Treat,  of  the  Disciple  or 
Campbellite  Church.  For  the  last  twenty  years  I  have 
frequently  been  called  to  deliver  a  series  of  lectures  on  the 
subject  in  various  places  in  Illinois  and  Missouri,  and  of 

9 

—2— 


10         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

course  I  had  to  go  to  the  bottom  of  the  subject  in  pre- 
paring for  these  debates  and  lectures.  For  fifty-three  years 
I  have  thus  been  compelled  to  study  this  question.  For  a 
number  of  years  past  many  of  my  brethren  in  different 
Conferences  have  urged  me  to  give  the  results  of  these 
years  of  study  to  the  Church  in  a  permanent  form  before  I 
go  hence.  In  compliance  with  these  requests,  I  have  pre- 
pared the  following  pages,  and  I  trust  they  may  be  made 
a  blessing  to  those  who  may  be  perplexed  on  this  subject. 

The  writers  whom  I  have  consulted  most  in  the  prep- 
aration of  these  pages  on  the  side  of  immersion  have  been : 
Dr.  Richard  Robinson,  of  Cambridge,  in  his  "History  of 
Baptism";  Dr.  Alexander  Carson,  whom  I  regard  as  the 
ablest  and  the  most  conscientious  writer  on  that  side  of 
the  question ;  Alexander  Campbell,  the  great  founder  and 
leader  of  the  Church  that  familiarly  bears  his  name ;  and 
Dr.  Conant,  in  his  "Baptizein."  The  writers  on  our  side 
to  whom  I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  are: 
Dr.  J.  Ditzler,  whose  incomparable  work  on  "Baptism" 
is  a  thesaurus  of  information  on  the  subject  and  the  mas- 
ter of  all  the  books  on  the  philological  argument,  and 
who  has  kindly  permitted  me  to  draw  at  will  from  his 
matchless  treasure  of  information,  for  which  both  the 
writer  and  reader  are  under  profound  obligations;  Dr. 
Dale's  "Classic  and  Judaic  Baptism" ;  Prof.  Moses  Stuart ; 
Dr.  James  L.  Chapman;  Charles  Taylor's  "Apostolic  Bap- 
tism" ;  and  Dr.  E.  B.  Fairfield's  "Letters  on  Baptism." 

In  closing  this  laborious  task,  that  has  taken  a  year 
and  eight  months  of  hard  and  almost  unceasing  toil,  I 
wish  to  express  my  profound  gratitude  to  my  Heavenly 
Father  for  sparing  my  life  and  giving  me  health  to  com- 
plete this  laborious  task  at  my  advanced  age.  And  now 
I  send  it  out  on  its  mission,  praying  that  it  may  be  made  a 
blessing  to  all  who  may  read  it,  and  that  it  may  contribute 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         n 

to  the  glory  of  God  in  helping  to  set  forth  His  truth  in 
regard  to  the  ordinance  of  Christian  baptism. 

G.  W.  HUGHEY. 

Galena,  Mo.,  November  15,  1906. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Christianity  was  designed  by  its  Author  to  be  a 
universal  religion  and  we  should  reasonably  expect  to  find 
it  adapted  to  all  ages,  climes,  and  conditions  of  the  human 
race.  The  reasonable  probability  is,  therefore,  that  its 
Author  would  adopt  such  rites,  ceremonies,  and  sacra- 
ments as  could  apply  to  all  ages,  races,  and  conditions  of 
the  human  race ;  such  as  would  equally  apply  to  those 
living  under  the  burning  rays  of  a  tropical  sun,  or  those 
living  in  the  region  of  perpetual  ice  and  snow  of  the 
Arctic  Circle;  such  as  could  be  administered  to  a  man 
without  delay  in  the  great  Sahara  of  Africa,  or  at  the 
Poles;  to  the  strong  man  of  robust  health,  or  the  tender 
and  delicate  female  who  could  not  stand  a  breath  of  fresh 
air,  or  to  the  helpless  invalid  on  his  couch  of  pain. 

If  the  Author  of  Christianity  adopted  a  sacrament 
the  mode  of  which  makes  it  impossible  to  be  administered 
in  all  places,  to  all  persons,  and  under  all  circumstances, 
He  made  a  stupendous  blunder,  such  as  we  cannot  charge 
upon  Infinite  Wisdom.  If  Jesus  enjoined  immersion, 
then  he  enjoined  a  rite  that  cannot  be  complied  with  in 
many  parts  of  the  globe  and  in  multitudes  of  cases  among 
men  and  women.  If  baptism  is  an  essential  condition  of 
the  remission  of  sins,  and  immersion  alone  is  baptism, 
then  under  all  these  conditions  and  circumstances  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  impossible,  and  Christ  has  instituted  a  rite 
that  makes  salvation  impossible  in  a  large  part  of  our 

13 


14         Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

earth  and  to  multitudes  of  its  inhabitants.  To  charge 
upon  the  Son  of  God  such  a  blunder  as  this  is  to  deny  His 
omniscience  or  His  compassion  for  lost  and  helpless  hu- 
manity. We  cannot  look  upon  such  a  thing  as  possible, 
and  its  probability  is  out  of  the  question,  that  Jesus,  Who 
came  into  the  world  to  save  men  at  the  fearful  cost  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Himself  on  the  cross,  could  have  enjoined  im- 
mersion, and  thus  make  the  salvation  of  multitudes  of 
those  for  whom  He  died  impossible,  without  any  fault  of 
their  own.  Such  a  thought  is  too  dishonoring  to  the  all- 
loving  Savior  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment. 

2.  Baptism  is  a  positive  institution.  It  rests  upon 
no  moral  principle  for  its  authority,  but  alone  upon  the 
will  and  command  of  its  Author.  It  is  therefore  of  the 
highest  probability  that  the  all-loving  Savior  of  men 
would  select  such  a  mode  for  this  positive  institution  of 
His  religion  as  would  be  the  least  burdensome  to  His 
faithful  children.  That  immersion  is  under  many  cir- 
cumstances more  burdensome  than  was  circumcision 
under  the  old  law  is  apparent  to  every  reflecting  mind. 
In  positive  institutions  we  must  always  expect  a  cor- 
respondence between  the  institution  and  the  thing  it  is 
designed  to  represent.  Circumcision  was  a  positive  insti- 
tution, and  it  had  direct  reference  to  the  circumcision  of 
the  heart — the  cutting  off  of  sin  from  the  heart.  The 
baptisms  of  the  law  were  all  positive  institutions,  and 
they  all  had  reference  to  spiritual  cleansing.  Christian 
baptism  has  direct  reference  to  the  purification  of  the 
heart  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  the  con- 
stant symbol  of  regeneration  and  the  purification  of  the 
heart  from  sin.  John  recognized  this  in  regard  to  his  bap- 
tism ;  he  said :  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water — He  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Jesus  recognized  the 
same  thing  when  He  said:     "For  John  truly  baptized 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         15 

with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
not  many  days  hence." 

This  connection  is  so  clearly  taught  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament that  the  early  Christian  writers  called  baptism 
regeneration,  as  we  show  in  our  chapter  on  "The  History 
of  Baptism";  not  that  they  believed  that  it  was  the  real 
regeneration,  but  it  was  the  symbol  of  it.  Hence  Justin 
Martyr,  who  calls  it  regeneration,  says:  "What  need 
have  I  of  that  other  baptism,  who  have  already  received 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost?"  Showing  that  he  un- 
derstood that  the  baptism  of  water  was  but  the  emblem 
or  symbol  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  but 
reasonable  that  there  should  be  agreement  between  the 
mode  of  the  real  baptism  and  its  emblem  or  symbol.  We 
have  shown  in  our  chapter  on  "The  History  of  Baptism" 
that  the  idea  that  baptism  was  designed  to  represent  "the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ"  was  unknown  in  the 
early  Church,  and  only  came  in  after  triune  immersion 
became  general,  to  justify  that  practice. 
>  3.  It  is  a  fact  that  women  on  an  average  from  four- 
teen to  forty-five,  for  at  least  one-fourth  of  that  period, 
could  not  be  immersed  without  great  danger  to  their  lives 
or  health.  Can  we  accept  it  as  probable  that  our  Lord 
would  have  enjoined  a  mode  of  baptism  fraught  with  such 
danger  to  the  health  and  lives  of  His  obedient  children? 
I  cannot  believe  that  our  Lord  would  make  any  such 
requirement. 

4.  Even  in  temperate  climates,  for  nearly  half  the 
year  immersion  in  streams,  where  often  the  ice  has  to  be 
broken,  cannot  be  performed  without  great  danger  to  the 
health  and  life  both  of  the  administrator  and  the  person 
baptized,  especially  if  they  should  not  be  of  robust  health 
or  constitution.  To  avoid  this  danger,  our  immersionist 
friends  in  the  cities  and  larger  towns  have  baptisteries  in 


1 6         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

their  churches,  with  pipes  to  warm  the  water,  and  rubber 
baptismal  robes  to  provide  against  the  danger  to  Hfe  and 
health  which  they  thus  acknowledge  is  liable  to  result  from 
immersion  in  cold  water  out  of  doors. 

These  facts  no  doubt  often  occur  to  the  minds  of  con- 
scientious immersionists.  Dr.  E.  B.  FairFiEIvD  gives  us  an 
example  of  this  in  his  "Letters  on  Baptism,"  which  I  will 
transcribe,  together  with  his  comments  oh  the  subject. 
He  says : 

"Some  years  ago,  while  I  was  still  in  the  Baptist 
ministry,  but  after  I  had  ceased  to  preach  on  'Baptism,' 
and  in  my  own  mind  had  ceased  to  insist  on  immersion,  I 
met  a  Baptist  clergyman  who  was  an  entire  stranger  to 
my  own  thoughts,  and  who  said  to  me:  'Has  it  never  oc- 
curred to  you  that  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  in  estab- 
lishing an  ordinance  for  all  time  and  for  all  latitudes  and 
for  all  seasons  of  the  year,  would  not  be  likely  to  give  the 
Church  one  that  is  so  utterly  unphysiological  as  immer- 
sion? Now,  I  have  studied  medicine,  and  practiced  as  a 
physician  fifteen  years,  and  I  know  that  what  I  say  is 
true.    It  is  contrary  to  ai^l  thk  laws  of  ufk  and 

HEALTH,  EITHER  FOR  THE  BAPTIZED  OR  FOR  THE  ADMIN- 
ISTRATOR.' I  was  quite  startled  to  hear  such  words  from 
a  Baptist  minister,  but  after  a  moment  I  confessed  to  him 
my  own  thoughts  and  my  own  experience ;  for  on  several 
occasions  I  had  been  ill  for  days  after  baptizing  a  large 
number  of  persons  in  the  spring,  following  a  winter  of 
special  revival. 

"Here  is  an  ordinance  for  the  world;  for  mission- 
aries in  all  countries;  for  every  convert,  immediately 
upon  his  conversion;  and  one  would  naturally  anticipate 
that  it  would  be  one  to  which  he  could  give  heed  at  any 
time  of  the  year,  or  in  any  locality  where  he  might  be. 
But  if  our  Baptist  brethren  have  the  right  understanding 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         17 

of  it,  it  is  not.  Many  (I  think  most)  Baptist  ministers 
are  obliged,  from  regard  to  their  own  Hfe  and  heahh  as 
well  as  out  of  regard  to  the  health  of  some  of  those  con- 
verted to  Christ,  to  postpone  the  baptism  of  those  con- 
verted in  the  winter  until  the  coming  of  the  spring  or 
summer.  Ministers  in  impaired  health  are  not  able  to 
attend  to  it  at  all. 

"I  was  present  in  Spurgeon's  church  in  the  summer 
of  1873,  on  the  occasion  of  the  baptism  of  ten  or  twelve 
persons.  The  pastor  preached  every  Sabbath.  He  was 
present,  and  as  well  as  usual,  at  the  time  of  this  baptism, 
but  another  minister  performed  the  ceremony ;  and  I  was 
informed  by  a  member  of  the  church  that  the  reason  Mr. 
Spurgeon  himself  did  not  perform  the  ceremony  was  that 
his  health  would  not  justify  him  in  doing  it.  Certainly 
his  friend  was  not  selected  because  of  his  special  skill,  for 
I  have  never  seen  immersion  more  ungracefully  executed. 

"To  me  it  seems  an  ungracious  task  to  argue  in  fa- 
vor of  a  ceremony  of  admission  to  a  Christian  Church 
which  the  pastor  of  the  church  must  get  somebody  else 
to  perform. 

"So  it  might  often  happen  that,  in  a  large  district  of 
country,  there  would  be  found  no  facilities  for  immersion. 

"In  the  spring  of  1864  I  spent  a  month  in  traveling 
in  Palestine.  I  was  then  a  Baptist,  and  always  expected 
to  remain  so.  I  did  not  travel  out  of  my  way  to  find 
water  for  baptism;  but,  as  it  was  the  month  of  March, 
and  the  latter  rain  had  just  ceased,  it  would  be  a  favorable 
time  for  finding  suitable  conveniences  for  immersion,  if 
such  there  were.  Yet,  aside  from  the  Mediterranean  and 
the  Sea  of  Galilee,  I  found  only  one  or  two  places  where 
immersion  would  have  been  practicable.  It  was  not 
oftener  than  once  in  four  days,  on  the  average,  that  we 


1 8         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

could  have  baptized  the  eunuch  in  that  method,  had  we 
fallen  in  with  him  and  had  he  so  required. 

"And  the  Jordan  was  not  one  of  these  places.  As 
we  stood  upon  the  banks  of  the  furious,  foaming,  dashing 
river,  and  the  words,  'What  will  ye  do  in  the  swellings 
thereof?'  naturally  occurred  to  me,  I  replied  inwardly, 
'I  do  not  know;  but  certainly  not  undertake  to  baptize 
anybody  by  immersion,  unless  I  wished  literally  to  bury 
him  by  baptism  into  death.'  I  would  as  soon  have 
thought  of  performing  immersion  in  the  Niagara,  half  a 
mile  above  the  cataract,  as  at  the  Fords  of  the  Jordan,  in 
the  month  of  March,  1864.  And  in  many  other  countries 
and  localities  it  would  be  more  difficult  to  find  facilities 
for  immersion  than  in  Palestine.  Even  in  countries  which 
are  regarded  as  well  watered,  it  is  not  always  easy." 
(Fairfield's  "Letters  on  Baptism,"  pp.  231  to  236.) 

These  considerations  ought  to  have  great  weight,  and 
they  must  have  on  all  thoughtful  minds,  whatever  may  be 
their  opinions  on  the  mode  of  baptism.  To  me  it  is  not 
only  not  at  all  probable,  but  it  is  not  possible  for  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church,  in  instituting  an  ordinance  for  all  time, 
all  climates,  and  all  conditions  of  the  human  race,  to  in- 
stitute one  which  could  not  apply  to  so  large  a  part  of  our 
earth  and  to  so  many  millions  of  its  inhabitants  as 
immersion  cannot. 

On  the  other  hand,  our  mode  meets  all  the  require- 
ments of  a  universal  ordinance.  It  meets  every  case  and 
condition  of  the  human  race,  in  every  clime,  season,  or 
country.  Wherever  men  can  find  water  enough  to  pre- 
serve life ,  they  can  find  water  enough  for  the  ordinance  of 
Christian  baptism.  There  need  be  no  delay.  No  danger 
to  the  life  or  health  of  the  baptizer  or  the  baptized,  it 
matters  not  however  feeble  or  delicate  the  health  or  how- 
ever rigorous  the  climate  or  the  season.     No  soul  need 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         19 

perish  for  want  of  the  faciHties  for  baptism  if  we  hold 
with  many  immersionists,  that  remission  of  sins  can  be 
obtained  only  in  baptism;  or  if  we  hold  with  the  great 
majority  of  immersionists,  that  baptism  is  the  only  door 
of  entrance  into  the  visible  Church  of  Christ  and  to  the 
communion  and  fellowship  of  the  Church ;  it  meets  all  the 
requirements  in  either  case,  and  was  selected  by  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church  for  this  very  reason,  that  no  one 
might  be  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  Church  fellowship 
or  of  the  benefits  of  communion  in  the  Church  of  God. 

5.  Under  the  law  of  Moses,  ceremonial  cleansing  was 
always  by  sprinkling.  If  there  was  a  deviation  from  the 
mode  of  simple  sprinkling  (Leviticus  xv.  18),  or  the  man 
who  sprinkled  the  water  of  separation  on  the  man  who 
had  touched  a  dead  body  (Numbers  xix.  19-21),  or  the 
leper  after  he  was  cleansed  (Leviticus  xiv.  8),  the  washing 
was  always  done  with  water ;  the  water  was  poured  over 
the  body,  and  not  the  body  plunged  into  the  water. 

Spiritual  cleansing  under  the  law  was  always  repre- 
sented by  SPRINKLING.  Psalm  li.  7:  "Purge  me  with 
hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean:  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be 
whiter  than  snow."  The  purging  with  hyssop  was  always 
done  by  sprinkling  by  means  of  a  bunch  of  hyssop.  The 
washing  was  the  result  of  the  sprinkling;  as  the  washing 
in  Isaiah  i.  5.  Bzekiel  xxxvi.  25 :  "Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean :  from  all  your 
filthiness,  and  from  all  your  idols,  will  I  cleanse  you." 
Here  spiritual  cleansing  is  represented  by  sprinkling.  In 
the  New  Testament  the  real  cleansing  from  sin  in  the  blood 
of  the  Lamb  is  always  represented  as  done  by  sprinkling. 
(Hebrews  x.  22 ;  First  Peter  i.  2 ;  Hebrews  xii.  34.) 

It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  the  Great  Head  of  the 
Church  would  do  the  real  cleansing  from  sin  by  sprink- 
ling, and  then  command  us  to  represent  it  by  plunging. 


20         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

Reason  demands  that  there  should  be  harmony  between 
the  mode  of  the  real  and  the  figurative  cleansing  from  sin. 

6.  The  relation  between  the  baptism  of  water  and 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  demands  that  the  mode 
should  be  the  same.  The  baptism  of  water  is  the  em- 
blem or  symbol  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  always  represented  as  being 
done  by  "pouring  out,"  "falling  on,"  "shedding  forth," 
"coming  upon";  never  as  a  "plunging  into,  or  an  im- 
mersion." It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  our  Lord 
would  give  us  a  mode  for  the  symbolical  baptism  that 
would  correspond  with  the  mode  of  the  real  baptism 
which  He  himself  performs  on  all  believers,  and  by  which 
all  believers  are  put  into  the  one  body  of  Christ,  and  are 
made  partakers  of  Him.  (First  Corinthians  xii.  13.) 
The  probability,  to  my  mind,  here  rises  to  a  certainty  and 
settles  the  question  in  the  introduction  before  we  reach 
the  argument.  It  does  seem  to  me  that,  if  the  mind  could 
divest  itself  of  the  prejudice  of  preconceived  opinions,  no 
other  conclusion  is  possible. 

7.  But  we  may  be  asked,  "Are  not  our  immersionist 
friends  honest  in  their  convictions?"  We  answer:  Most 
unquestionably  they  are.  Nothing  but  loyalty  to  a  con- 
viction to  what  they  believe  is  a  duty  enjoined  by  the 
command  of  the  Lord  could  influence  men  and  women  to 
submit  to  such  a  burden  as  immersion  is  in  the  coldest 
weather  and  with  the  certain  knowledge  that  they  are 
running  so  great  a  risk  to  their  lives  and  health. 

Some  of  the  noblest  Christian  men  and  women  who 
have  ever  lived,  and  who  are  living  to-day,  conscientiously 
believe  that  the  Lord  Jesus  enjoined  this  mode  of  baptism, 
and  are  willing  to  take  every  risk  to  do  what  they  believe 
to  be  an  act  of  obedience  to  His  will.  God  accepts  and 
blesses  them  for  their  loyalty  to  their  convictions  of  duty, 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        21 

notwithstanding  their  mistake  in  regard  to  the  proper 
mode  and  design  of  baptism.  He  equally  blesses  those 
who  as  honestly  believe  that  the  pouring  or  sprinkling  of 
water  on  the  person,  in  token  of  purification  from  sin,  is 
the  divinely  instituted  baptism.  This  proves  that  the 
MODE  of  baptism  is  not  essential  to  the  ordinance,  much 
less  to  the  remission  of  sins. 

Why,  then,  the  necessity  of  controversy  on  the  sub- 
ject? If  it  were  not  for  the  consequences  of  the  teachings 
of  immersionists  I  would  deem  it  not  a  matter  of  sufficient 
importance  to  merit  controversy.  But  when  we  are  told 
that  Christ  commanded  the  act  of  immersion  as  the  only 
baptism,  and  that  remission  of  sins  can  be  obtained  only 
in  this  act,  and  by  others  that  this  act  alone  admits  us  to 
the  communion  of  the  Church  of  God,  and  without  it  we 
cannot  enter  the  visible  Church,  it  becomes  a  question  of 
vital  importance.  It  ceases  to  be  merely  a  question  of 
mode  and  enters  into  the  very  essence  of  the  gospel.  It 
puts  a  yoke  on  the  necks  of  Christ's  disciples  that  many 
are  not  able  to  bear,  as  we  have  seen,  and  becomes  a  vital 
question  of  Christian  liberty,  and  demands  the  most 
careful  consideration  and  the  most  thorough  investigation. 

The  unaccountable  and  unsupported  assumptions 
and  assertions  of  many  immersionist  writers  and  debaters 
to  fasten  this  yoke  of  bondage  on  the  Church  of  Christ 
makes  it  imperatively  necessary  that  these  unsupported 
assumptions  be  met  and  shown  to  be  groundless,  and  the 
truth  be  printed  on  this  important  question.  As  we  have 
shown  in  the  following  pages,  the  claims  of  immersionists 
are  extravagant  and  not  sustained  by  facts. 

Take,  as  an  example  of  this  extravagance  and  reck- 
lessness, the  position  immersionists  usually  take  on  the 
meaning  of  the  word  haptidzo.  They  usually  declare  that 
all  the  lexicographers,  commentators,  critics,  and  scholars 


22         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

are  with  them  on  the  meaning  of  this  word.  Dr.  Carson 
is  an  honorable  exception,  for  he  frankly  admits  that  the 
lexicographers  and  commentators  are  all  against  him  in 
regard  to  the  meaning  of  this  word.  Dr.  Carson  was 
right,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  following  pages.  There  is 
not  a  lexicon  on  earth  that  agrees  with  them  on  the 
''specific  and  univocal  meaning,  contended  for  by  Car- 
son and  Campbell. 

Take,  as  another  illustration,  their  statements  in  re- 
gard to  the  facts  of  ecclesiastical  history.  Mr.  Campbell 
in  his  debate  with  Dr.  Rice,  and  Mr.  Braden  in  his  debate 
with  me,  expressly  declared  that  in  the  early  Church 
persons  who  had  not  been  immersed  were  not  permitted 
to  be  ordained  to  the  ministry.  This  statement  they 
made  right  in  the  face  of  the  facts  of  history,  as  we  have 
shown  in  the  last  chapter  of  this  book. 

So  great  and  general  is  this  tendency  on  the  part  of 
controversial  writers  on  that  side  of  this  controversy  that 
for  years  I  have  been  compelled  to  doubt  every  statement 
they  make  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  words  or  the  facts 
of  ecclesiastical  history  touching  the  points  of  contro- 
versy. Such  things  are  painful  to  state,  and  more  painful 
because  true.  The  case  might  be  stated  much  stronger 
in  some  cases,  as  shown  by  Dr.  Ditzler  in  regard  to  his  ex- 
perience with  Dr.  Graves  and  others,  as  can  be  seen  in  his 
work  on  "Baptism."  No  good  can  be  accomplished  by 
such  a  course,  and  it  is  bound  to  react  in  the  end  against 
the  cause  it  is  advanced  to  support,  and  the  advocates 
who  resort  to  that  method. 

Over-zealous  controversialists  on  both  sides  are  liable 
to  be  led  into  mistakes  of  this  character,  if  they  are  not 
careful  in  following  the  statements  of  others,  when  they 
have  not  the  facts  at  first  hand.  I  have  endeavored  al- 
ways, both  in  oral  discussion  and  in  writing,  to  know  the 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        23 

truth  in  regard  to  every  statement  I  make  in  regard  to 
matters  of  criticism  or  to  facts  of  history.  I  do  not  want 
to  be  mistaken  myself,  and  I  do  not  want  to  mislead 
anyone  by  any  statement  I  may  make.  Truth  is  what 
we  all  ought  to  seek,  and  truth  can  never  be  sustained 
by  falsehood. 


Baptism:   Its  Mode. 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  Position  oi^  Immersionists. 

The  position  of  our  immersionist  friends  is,  that 
baptism  is  the  momentary  immersion  of  the  whole  body 
under  water,  and  the  immediate  emersion,  or  Ufting  it  out 
again.  The  emersion  is  just  as  essential  to  baptism  as 
the  IMMERSION.  They  claim  that  baptism  is  a  burial  and 
resurrection.  The  resurrection  is  just  as  essential  as  the 
burial;  for  with  them  baptism  is  designed  to  represent 
"the  burial  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord."  Baptism 
would  not  be  complete  without  the  resurrection.  This 
must  be  borne  in  mind  throughout  this  discussion.  If  the 
word  haptidzo  expresses  the  action  of  baptism,  then  it 
must  express  both  parts  of  the  action — both  the  immer- 
sion and  the  emersion.  To  prove  their  claim  of  ex- 
clusive immersion  they  rely  on  the  following  points, 
or  arguments : 

1.  The  force  and  meaning  of  the  word  haptidzo, 
which  they  claim  always  means  to  dip,  plunge,  or  im- 
merse ;  never  having  any  other  meaning. 

2.  The  force  and  meaning  of  the  preposition  eis 
(cis),  which  they  claim,  when  used  with  verbs  of  motion, 
always  means  motion  into  a  place,  and  never  simply 
motion  To  a  place. 

2'4 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         25 

3.  The  places  where  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament  took  place. 

4.  The  supposed  allusions  to  immersion  in  Romans 
vi.  1-6  and  Colossians  ii.  12. 

5.  That  baptism  is  called  "a  washing,"  which  they 
say  must  therefore  be  an  immersion. 

6.  "One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism."  (Bphesi- 
ans  iv.  5.) 

7.  The  practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  which  they 
claim  was  always  by  immersion. 

We  purpose  to  show  in  the  following  pages  that  every 
one  of  these  positions  utterly  fails  to  sustain  their  claims ; 
not  one  of  them  can  they  maintain. 

On  the  specific  meaning  of  haptidzo  they  are  at  hope- 
less disagreement  among  themselves;  and  until  they  can 
reach  an  agreement  among  themselves  as  to  the  specific 
meaning  of  their  own  specific  term,  they  should  not  ask 
us  to  accept  their  position.  Let  us  look  at  a  few  of  their 
efforts  to  agree  on  this  important  point. 

Dr.  Alexander  Carson,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
and  scholarly  Baptist  ministers  of  the  last  century,  speak- 
ing of  haptidzo,  says:     "My  position  is,  that  it  always 

SIGNIFIES    TO     dip;    NEVER     EXPRESSING    ANYTHING    BUT 

MODE."  (Carson  on  "Baptism,"  p.  56.)  The  capitals 
are  his. 

Alexander  Campbell  says:  "Baptize  indicates  a 
specific  action,  and,  consequently,  as  such,  can  have  but 
one  meaning.  For  if  a  person  or  thing  can  be  immersed 
in  water,  oil,  milk,  honey,  sand,  earth,  debt,  grief,  afflic- 
tion, Spirit,  light,  or  darkness,  it  is  a  word  indicating 
specific  action  and  specific  action  only."  (Campbell  on 
"Baptism,"  pp.  118-119.) 

What  Mr.  Campbell  means  by  this  specific  action  he 
tells  us  in  his  debate  with  Dr.  Rice.  He  says:  "Baptizo 
—3— 


26         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

permits  the  subject  to  stay  under  the  water  but  a  very 
Httle  time,  and  then  emerge  again.  In  the  etymology 
and  philology  of  the  Greek  language  the  word  haptizo 
never  can  be  shown  to  mean  going  to  the  bottom  and 
staying  there."  He  says:  "It  was  a  part  of  the  sig- 
nificance of  haptizo  to  emerge  again,  as  well  as  to  immerge, 
making  it  equal  to  katadusis  and  anadusis  combined." 
Again  he  says:  "My  idea  is  that  the  dipping  should  not 
be  done  frequently,  but  that  it  indicated  the  rapidity  with 
which  the  action  was  to  be  performed;  that  the  thing 
should  be  done  quickly,  and  for  this  reason  the  termina- 
tion zo  is  never  used  when  the  word  is  employed  in  con- 
nection with  the  business  of  dyers  and  tanners.  But  the 
word  haptizo  is  always  used  to  express  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  This  is  the  best  reason  I  can  give  for  the  change 
in  the  termination  into  20."  ("Campbell  and  Rice  De- 
bate," pp.  77-78.)  Here  it  is  plain  that  Mr.  Campbell's 
specific  action  expressed  by  haptidzo  is  being  put  mo- 
mentarily under  water  and  then  raised  out  of  it  again. 
The  radical  root  hap  puts  the  person  or  thing  under  the 
water,  while  the  termination  zo  brings  him  or  it  up  again. 

Dr.  GaIvE,  an  eminent  Baptist  writer  of  England  in 
the  last  century,  takes  square  issue  with  Mr.  Campbell, 
and  also  with  Dr.  Carson,  and  says:  "The  word  haptizo, 
perhaps,  does  so  necessarily  express  the  action  of  putting 
under  water,  as  a  thing  in  general  being  in  that  condition, 
no  matter  how  it  comes  so,  whether  it  is  put  into  the 
water  or  the  water  comes  over  it."  (Carson  on  "Bap- 
tism," p.  21.)  Here  the  specific  action  claimed  by  Camp- 
bell and  the  mode  contended  for  by  Carson  are  totally  re- 
pudiated, and  the  state  or  condition  of  "heing  under  is 
substituted  for  "mode"  and  "specific  action." 

Prof.  MoRRELiv  takes  square  issue  with  Carson,  and 
repudiates  Campbell  entirely,  and  goes  even  further  than 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        27 

Gale.  He  says:  "That  the  word  baptize  uniformly  sig- 
nifies to  dip  I  will  not  venture  to  assert  or  undertake  to 
prove.  I  believe,  however,  that  it  is  generally  admitted 
on  both  s'des  that  the  word  does  mean  to  dip ;  that  this  is 
its  generic  meaning,  and  its  most  usual  meaning.  But  it 
appears  quite  evident  that  the  word  also  bears  the  sense 
of  covering  by  superfusion.  This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Cox, 
who  says:  'A  person  may  be  immersed  by  pouring,  but 
immersion  is  the  being  plunged  into  water,  or  over- 
whelmed by  it.  Were  the  water  to  ascend  from  the  earth, 
it  would  still  be  baptism  were  the  person  wholly  covered 
by  it.'  Thus  far  we  surrender  the  question  of  immersion, 
and  in  doing  so  we  feel  no  small  pleasure  in  finding  our- 
selves in  such  good  company  as  that  of  Dr.  Cox."  (Dale's 
"Classic  Baptism,"  pp.  58-59.) 

Here  are  two  eminent  Baptist  scholars  who  wholly 
surrender  the  specific  meaning  of  haptidzo  claimed  by 
Carson  and  Campbell,  and  admit  that  a  man  may  be  im- 
mersed by  SUPERFUSION— yea,  that  he  may  be  baptized  by 
POURING.  How  these  eminent  scholars  agree  upon  the 
word  on  which  they  all  rely  to  prove  exclusive  immersion ! 

Dr.  Fuller  agrees  with  Gale,  Cox,  and  Morrell.  He 
says:  "My  position  is,  that  haptizo  signifies  to  immerse, 
it  matters  not  how  the  immersion  is  effected.  Suppose  a 
man  should  lie  in  the  baptistery  while  it  is  filling:  the 
pouring  of  the  water  would  not  be  immersion,  yet  an  im- 
mersion would  take  place  if  he  remained  long  enough." 
(Dale's  "Classic  Baptism,"  p.  60.) 

Dr.  Con  ANT  is  perhaps  the  ablest  writer  on  the  side 
of  immersion  since  the  death  of  Dr.  Carson.  He  says: 
"The  word  immerse,  as  well  as  its  synonym  immerge,  etc., 
expresses  the  full  import  of  haptizein.  The  idea  of  emer- 
sion is  not  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word. 


28         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

It  means  simply,  to  put  into  or  under  water  (or  other 
substance),  without  determining  whether  the  object  im- 
mersed sinks  to  the  bottom,  or  floats  in  the  Hquid,  or  is 
immediately  taken  out.  This  is  determined,  not  by  the 
word  itself,  but  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  by  the  de- 
sign of  the  act  in  each  particular  case."  (Conant's 
"Baptizein,"  pp.  88-89.)  Conant  here  flatly  contradicts 
Campbell  in  an  essential  element  of  the  meaning  of  their 
specific  word.  He  declares  that  baptidzo  expresses  but 
one  half  of  the  action  of  baptism — it  has  immersion  in  it, 
but  no  emersion;  it  has  a  burial  in  it,  but  no  resurrection. 

Baptism,  then,  cannot  represent  the  burial  and  res- 
urrection of  Christ,  because  there  is  no  resurrection  in  the 
word.  This  is  a  complete  giving  up  of  the  claim  that 
baptidzo  expresses  the  mode  or  action  of  baptism.  The 
mode  or  action  for  which  immersionists  contend  is  not  in 
the  word  baptidzo.  Conant  is  not  alone  in  this  position, 
as  we  have  seen.  Dr.  Gale,  Prof.  Morrell,  Dr.  Cox,  and 
Dr.  Fuller,  all  eminent  immersionist  scholars,  agree  with 
him.  If  the  word  baptidzo  does  not  express  the  mode  or 
action  of  baptism,  why  this  great  fight  on  the  meaning 
of  this  word?  If  the  action  expressed  by  baptidzo,  when 
applied  to  Christian  baptism,  must  be  found  outside  the 
word  itself,  what  force  can  the  meaning  of  the  word  have 
in  determining  the  mode  or  action  of  baptism? 

Our  immersionist  friends  claim  that  baptism  is 
nothing  else  but  mode  or  action.  If  this  be  true,  why 
did  not  our  Lord  select  a  word  that  specifically  expressed 
that  mode  or  action,  and  not  one  that  expressed  but  one 
half  of  it  and  left  us  to  infer  the  other  half,  or  learn  it  from 
the  circumstances  in  each  individual  case?  Why  did  He 
not  select  a  word  which  expressed  the  whole  action  ?  The 
Greek  language  certainly  had  a  word  or  words  to  express 
the  whole  action  for  which  they  contend. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         29 

Dupto  expresses  the  very  action  for  which  they  con- 
tend. Liddell  and  Scott  define  it  "to  duck,  to  dive." 
To  duck  and  dive  both  mean  a  momentary  immersion, 
followed  by  an  immediate  emersion,  the  very  action  our 
immersionist  friends  contend  for;  yet  our  Lord  never 
used  this  word  in  connection  with  baptism.  But  when 
immersion  became  the  practice  among  the  Greeks,  a  word 
of  this  family  was  used  always  to  express  immersion,  while 
haptidzo,  or  baptismos,  was  used  to  express  the  baptism. 
But  we  shall  see  this  more  fully  further  on.  Why  do  our 
immersionist  friends  discard  the  English  word  dip,  which 
comes  from  dupto,  and  means  the  very  action  which  they 
call  baptism,  and  take  the  Latin  immerse,  which,  like 
baptidzo,  according  to  Dr.  Conant,  expresses  but  half  the 
action  for  which  they  contend?  Immersion  puts  the  ob- 
ject or  person  under  the  water,  sinks  him  or  it  down,  but 
it  takes  emersion  to  bring  it  or  him  up  again.  It  takes 
the  two  words  to  express  the  one  act  which  they  call 
baptism.  In  immersion  there  is  no  resurrection.  Conse- 
quently immersion  cannot  represent  the  resurrection  of 
Christ.  Emersion  must  come  to  the  help  of  immersion  to 
get  a  resurrection  in  baptism.  Dr.  Conant  and  those  who 
agree  with  him  have  come  to  our  side,  and  hold  with  us, 
that  the  word  baptidzo  alone  does  not  express  the  action 
of  baptism.     Verily  they  have  made  some  progress ! 


CHAPTER  II. 

Our  Position  on  the)  Meaning  of  "Baptidzo." 

BapTidzo  is  not  a  -specific,  but  a  generic  word.  It 
expresses  a  thing  done,  but  not  the  manner  of  doing  it; 
and  hence  the  action  or  mode  of  baptism  can  never  be  de- 
termined by  the  word  baptidzo.  Dr.  Dale,  after  exam- 
ining hundreds  of  examples  where  the  word  occurs  in 
classic  Greek,  says:  "A  blind  man  could  more  readily 
select  any  demanded  color  from  the  spectrum,  or  a  child 
could  more  readily  thread  the  Cretan  labyrinth,  than 
could  the  seven  wise  men  of  Greece  declare  the  nature  or 
mode  of  any  given  baptism  by  the  naked  help  of  haptizo." 
(Dale's  "Classic  Baptism,"  pp.  353-354-)  'I'his  is  putting 
it  pretty  strong,  but  it  is  the  conclusion  of  an  eminent 
scholar,  after  a  most  laborious  and  painstaking  examin- 
ation of  the  classical  usage  of  the  word. 

A  vast  amount  of  useless  labor  has  been  bestowed  in 
this  controversy  on  an  effort  to  prove  the  original  and 
etymological  meaning  of  baptidzo,  and  yet  we  know  that 
the  original  or  etymological  meaning  of  a  word  can  de- 
termine nothing  as  to  its  meaning  in  any  given  period 
of  its  history;  for  all  living  languages  are  continually 
changing,  and  many  times  words  by  use  take  on  meanings 
diametrically  opposite  to  the  original  or  etymological 
meaning. 

Dr.  Carson  says:  "ijsE  is  the  S01.E  arbiter  oi? 
language;  and  whatever  is  agreeable  to  this  au- 
thority STANDS  BEYOND  IMPEACHMENT."  (Carson  on 
"Baptism,"  p.  46.) 

30 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         31 

Dr.  HiNTON,  an  eminent  Baptist  writer,  in  his  "His- 
tory of  Baptism,"  says:  "It  is  manifest,  however,  that 
the  meaning  of  a  word  in  any  given  case  is  not  to  be  de- 
termined by  its  original  sense,  but  by  its  actual  ordinary 
meaning  in  the  language  in  which  the  author  wrote  and 
at  the  time  of  his  writing.  .  .  .  In  what  sense  did 
Christ  and  His  apostles  use  the  term  baptize,  and  what  did 
they  design  the  disciples  then  and  now  to  understand  by 
it?"     (Hinton's  "History  of  Baptism,"  pp.  18-IQ.) 

Drs.  Carson  and  Hinton  are  correct  in  the  position 
here  taken,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  as  we  proceed ;  but 
still  we  will  raise  the  question  for  a  moment  as  to  the 
original  meaning  of  haptidzo. 

Upon  this  question  the  learned  are  divided;  some 
holding  that  the  radical,  primary,  and  proper  meaning  of 
haptidzo  and  its  root  liapto  is  to  dip,  and  their  secondary 
meaning  is  to  dye;  while  others  hold  that  the  radical, 
primary,  and  proper  meaning  of  these  words  is  to  dye, 
while  as  secondary  meanings  they  have  to  dip,  to  wash 
to  wet,  to  moisten,  to  pour  upon,  to  sprinkle;  because 
dyeing  may  be  done  by  all  these  methods. 

The  position  which  we  take  is,  that  the  original, 
primary,  and  proper  meaning  of  these  words  was  to  dye, 
while  as  secondary  meanings  they  embrace  every  mode 
of  application  by  which  it  may  be  done,  from  the  slightest 
distillation  of  the  dew  of  heaven  to  the  sinking  of  a  ship 
to  the  bottom  of  the  ocean. 

Dr.  Timothy  Dwight,  who  was  so  long  president  of 
Yale  College  and  perhaps  one  of  the  most  learned  Biblical 
critics  this  country  has  ever  produced,  in  speaking  of 
the  meaning  of  haptidzo  and  its  root  bapto,  says:  "Con- 
cerning the  former  of  these  subjects,  I  observe :  i .  That 
the  body  of  learned  critics  and  lexicographers  declare  that 
the  original  meaning  of  these  words  is  to  tinge,  stain,  dye , 


32         Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

or  color,  and  that  when  it  means  immersion  it  is  only  in  a 
secondary  and  occasional  sense,  derived  from  the  fact  that 
such  things  as  are  dyed,  stained,  or  colored  are  often  im- 
mersed for  this  end.  This  interpretation  of  these  words 
also  they  support  by  such  a  series  of  quotations  as  seem 
unanswerably  to  evince  that  this  was  the  original,  clas- 
sical meaning  of  these  words."  (Dwight's  "Theology," 
Vol.  IV.,  p.  345.) 

Dr.  AivBKRT  BarnKS,  in  his  comment  on  Matthew  iii.  6, 
says:  "The  word  baptize  signifies  originally  to  tinge,  to 
dye,  to  stain,  as  those  who  dye  clothes." 

Dr.  Carson  gives  a  statement  from  Prof.  Porson,  one 
of  the  most  eminent  Greek  scholars  England  ever  pro- 
duced. It  is  in  a  quotation  from  a  letter  to  a  friend  who 
visited  Prof.  Porson  not  long  before  his  death.  The 
writer  of  the  letter  says:  "I  inquired  whether,  in  his 
opinion,  baptize  must  be  considered  equal  to  bapto,  which 
he  said  was  to  tinge,  as  dyers.  He  replied  to  this  effect : 
that  if  there  be  a  difference,  he  should  take  the  former  to  be 
the  strongest."     (Carson  on  "Baptism,"  p.  23.) 

Here,  you  will  observe,  that  eminent  scholar  says 
bapto  means  ''to  tinge  as  dyers";  and  "if  there  be  a  dif- 
ference" between  it  and  baptidzo,  he  should  take  baptidzo 
"to  be  the  strongest."  He  does  not  say  that  there  is  a 
difference,  but  ''if  there  should  be  a  difference."  This  great 
scholar  declares  with  Drs.  Dwight  and  Barnes,  that  the 
original  meaning  of  bapto  and  baptidzo  is  "to  tinge  as 
dyers." 

Dr.  Richard  Robinson,  an  eminent  Baptist  scholar 
and  writer,  in  his  "History  of  Baptism,"  says:  "Baptize 
is  a  dyer's  word,  and  signifies  to  dip  so  as  to  color.  Such 
as  render  the  word  to  dip  give  one  idea,  but  the  word  stood 

for  two,  and  one  is  wanting  in  this  rendering 

The  word  then  covers  two  ideas,  the  one  literal  dipping, 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         33 

the  other  figurative  coloring — a  figure  of  a  real  fact; 
meaning  that  John  by  bathing  persons  in  the  river  Jordan 
conferred  a  character,  a  moral  hue,  as  dyers  by  dipping 
in  a  dyeing  vat  set  a  tinge  or  color.''  (Robinson's  "His- 
tory of  Baptism,"  pp.  7-8.)  Dr.  Robinson  got  a  part  of 
the  truth,  but  only  a  part,  as  we  shall  see. 

Dr.  Galk  also  says:  "The  Grecians  very  frequently 
apply  the  word  in  all  its  various  forms  to  the  dyer's  art." 

That  the  original  meaning  of  these  terms  was  to  dye, 
and  not  to  dip,  is  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  the  idea 
of  to  dye,  stain,  or  color  inheres  in  all  the  words  of  the 
family  derived  from  the  parent  root  bapto,  while  some  of 
the  words  of  this  family  are  applied  exclusively  to  the 
dyer's  art,  dropping  the  idea  of  dip  entirely :  as  bapheon, 
a  dyer's  house;  bapheus,  a  dyer;  baphike,  the  art  of  dye- 
ing; bapsimos,  to  be  dyed.  So  in  Latin:  baptes,  frog-col- 
ored; bapt(E,  the  priests  of  the  goddess  Cotytto,  because 
they  stained  their  faces  with  paint,  etc.,  etc.  Here  the 
idea  of  to  dye  inheres  in  all  these  words,  while  the  idea 
of  dip  disappears  entirely.  When  we  come  to  examine 
the  use  of  the  term  baptidzo,  we  will  find  many  examples 
where  the  idea  of  dip  or  immerse  is  wholly  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  this  must  forever  settle  the  question  of  the  pri- 
mary meaning  of  the  root  bapto. 

This  radical  meaning  of  the  root  of  this  word  comes 
out  fully  in  the  Christian  ordinance;  for  it  imports  a 
moral  or  spiritual  tinge,  hue,  or  color,  that  is  the  image  of 
Christ  stamped  upon  the  soul;  and  thus  does  the  radical 
meaning  of  the  root  of  baptidzo  harmonize  with  the  sym- 
bolical import  of  the  Christian  ordinance,  and  this  shows 
the  beauty  of  selecting  the  term  to  give  name  to  the  in- 
itiatory rite  of  Christianity. 


CHAPTER  III. 
"Bapto,"  the;  Root  of  "Baptidzo,"  and  the  I^kxicons. 
Classical  and  Scriptural  Usages. 

Though  hapto,  the  root  of  haptidzo,  is  never  used  to 
express  the  Christian  ordinance,  yet  Dr.  Carson  and  Mr. 
Campbell  both  claim  that  in  meaning  they  are  identical 
as  to  mode.  Dr.  Carson  contends  that  while  it  originally 
meant  to  dip,  yet  by  use  it  came  to  mean  to  dye  in  any 
manner — to  dye  by  sprinkling  as  well  as  by  dipping. 
But  when  not  used  in  the  sense  of  to  dye,  it  always  means 
to  dip.     He  says:     "Except  when  it  signifies  to  dye,  it 

DENOTES  MODE,  AND  NOTHING  BUT  MODE."      The  Capitals 

are  his.     (Carson  on  "Baptism,"  p.  i8.) 

Dr.  Gale  holds  that  hapto  and  haptidzo  are  "exactly 
the  same  as  to  meaning."  {Ibid.,  p.  19.)  Mr.  A.  Camp- 
bell says:  ''Baptizo,  confessedly  a  derivative  from  hapto, 
derives  its  specific  meaning,  as  well  as  its  radical  and  im- 
mutable form,  from  that  word."  ("Christian  Baptism," 
p.  119.)  While  Mr.  Campbell  admits,  with  Dr.  Carson, 
that  hapto  has  the  secondary  sen^e  and  figurative  meaning 
to  dye,  yet  he  says:  "In  the  radical  and  proper  import, 
it  is  abundantly  evident  that  they  are  isodunai,  exactly 
the  same  as  to  signification."  (Ibid.,  p.  130.)  Indeed 
Mr.  Campbell  goes  so  far  as  to  affirm  that  "wherever  we 
find  hap  we  find  dip,  either  in  fact  or  in  figure." 

Had  Drs.  Carson  and  Gale  and  Mr.  Campbell  taken 
the  position  that  the  radical  and  primary  meaning  of  the 
root  hapto  was  to  stain,  dye,  color,  etc.,  and  that  as  sec- 

34 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         35 

ondary  meanings  it  meant  to  wash,  to  moisten,  to  pour 
upon,  to  sprinkle,  to  dip,  etc.,  as  dyeing  could  be  done  in 
all  these  ways,  they  would  have  hit  the  truth,  and  would 
have  been  sustained  by  the  lexicons  and  by  the  use  of  the 
Greek  language ;  and  that  haptidzo  carried  all  these  mean- 
ings of  its  root  with  it,  they  would  have  been  right.  But 
this  would  have  spoiled  their  theory,  and  truth  must  be 
sacrificed  to  theory,  not  theory  to  truth! 

We  have  seen  in  Chapter  II.  the  position  of  Dr. 
Dwight,  Professor  Porson,  Albert  Barnes,  and  Dr.  Richard 
Robinson,  the  great  Baptist  historian  of  baptism,  that 
the  radical  and  primary  meaning  of  hapto  was  to  tinge,  to 
stain,  to  dye,  or  color.  And  that  Dr.  Dwight  tells  us  this 
is  the  testimony  of  the  learned  world. 

Now,  is  the  position  of  these  learned  men  sustained 
by  the  facts  in  the  case?  Let  us  look  at  the  lexicons  a 
moment.  The  following  lexicons  and  grammarians  I 
quote  from  Dr.  DiTzler,  by  permission.  He  is  always 
accurate  and  reliable. 
^     "i.     Stokius:     Bapto,  tingo,  moisten,  stain." 

"2.  Cyrilli  Philexeni  Glossaria:  Bapto,  to  stain, 
moisten,  imbue,  wet." 

"3.  Faciolatus  and  Forcellini  give  hapto  as  the 
synonym  of  tingo,  to  moisten,  wet." 

"4.     Andrews' Latin  Lexicon :     5a/) ^^,  painters." 

"5.  Anthon's  Classical  Dictionary:  Baptoe,  the 
priests  of  Cotytto.  The  name  is  derived  from  BaTTTw,  to 
tinge  or  dye,  from  their  painting  their  cheeks  and  staining 
the  parts  around  the  eyes  like  women." 

"6.  Kuhner's  Greek  Grammar:  Section  143,  p. 
173:     BttTTTco,  hapto,  to  tinge." 

"7.  Dalzel,  Grgeci  Majorum:  BaTrrw,  hapto  {thigo), 
tinge." 


36         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"8.  Ursinus'  Greek  Lexicon:  To  stain,  to  dye,  to 
wash,  or  cleanse  (abluo),  to  sprinkle  (as  per  go)." 

"lo.  Gazes:  Bapto,  to  cast  or  thrust  down.  To 
stain,  to  dye,  and  to  sink.  To  pour  anything  into  or  on 
anything.  ...  To  shed  forth,  to  wash,  to  wash  the 
hands,  etc." 

"ii.  Kouma,  almost  the  same  as  Gazes,  has  brecho, 
shed  forth,  or  sprinkle,  wash,  etc." 

"i2.  Stephanus,  favoring  immersion,  gives  paint 
ifuco),  stain,  moisten,  imbue,  as  by  far  the  most  prevalent 
meaning,  and  pour  upon." 

In  a  foot-note  he  gives  us  the  following :  "Superfusa, 
this  being  by  the  great  editor,  Valpy.  Buddaeus,  the 
older  lexicographer,  and  ancient  glosses  do  the  same — 
give  stain,  paint,  moisten,  imbue,  as  the  prevailing  use  of 
bapto."     (Ditzler  on  "Baptism,"  pp.  106-107.) 

This  learned  author  calls  attention  to  the  fact  so  ob- 
vious to  all  thinking  men,  that  the  primary  meaning  of  a 
word  cannot  be  learned  from  its  current  use  five  hundred 
or  a  thousand  years  after  it  appears  in  a  language,  but 
from  its  use  when  it  first  appears.  The  first  appearance 
of  bapto  in  the  Greek  language  is  in  Homer,  a  thousand 
years  before  Christ.  It  unquestionably  means  to  tinge, 
to  stain,  in  this  first  appearance.  The  mode  of  this  tinge- 
ing  was  by  the  tiniest  kind  of  sprinkling.  It  is  in  Ho- 
mer's battle  of  frogs  and  mice.  Speaking  of  a  frog  that 
was  slain,  he  says:  "He  fell  without  even  looking  up- 
ward and  (ebapteto  d'  aimati  limne)  the  lake  was  tinged 
with  blood."  Here  we  have  bap;  but  where  is  the  dip9 
in  fact  or  in  figure? 

Dr.  Carson,  on  page  29  of  his  work  on  "Baptism," 
thought  he  had  found  a  case  in  Homer's  "Odyssey" 
where  bapto  means  to  dip.  He  says:  "Homer  employs 
the  word  in  the  'Odyssey'  in  such  a  situation  where  the 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         37 

meaning  cannot  be  doubted.  He  compares  the  hissing 
of  the  eye  of  Polyphemus,  when  bored  by  a  red-hot  stake, 
to  the  hissing  of  the  water  when  a  smith  dips  his  iron  in 
order  to  temper  it. 

*  As  when  the  smith  an  hatchet  or  huge  axe,  tempering  with  skill, 
Plunges  the  hissing  blade  deep  in  cold  water,  whence  the  strength 
of  steel.'  — Cowper. 

No  one  who  has  seen  the  horse  shod  will  be  at  a  loss  to 
know  the  mode  of  the  application  of  water  in  this  in- 
stance. The  immersion  of  the  newly  formed  shoe  in  the 
water,  in  order  to  harden  the  metal,  is  expressed  by  bap- 
tein."  Dr.  Carson  has  missed  the  idea  of  the  poet  en- 
tirely. It  is  not  a  horseshoe  of  iron  that  is  being  tem- 
pered, but  the  steel  blade  of  a  hatchet  or  huge  pole-axe, 
which  is  a  totally  different  process. 

Dr.  DiTzivER  remarks  on  this  case : 

"2.  'Odyssey,'  I.,  302:  'As  when  a  smith  tempers 
(baptei)  a  hatchet  or  huge  pole-axe  with  cold  water,'  or 
'in  cold  water.' 

"Here  bapto  may  imply  such  a  partial  dip  as  we  often 
witness  in  the  shops  where  smiths  temper  a  huge  pole-axe 
or  hatchet.  The  edge  is  sHghtly  dipped.  But  from  the 
context  this  does  not  seem  to  have  been  the  allusion.  It 
was  more  likely  the  well-known  process  of  putting  some 
cold  water  on  the  anvil,  placing  the  axe  or  hatchet  on  it, 
and  striking  a  blow  with  the  hammer,  which  makes  an 
explosion  or  report  louder  than  an  ordinary  gun.  This 
is  done  constantly  in  tempering  axes  and  hatchets. 

"i.     We  have  in  Homer  no  immerse  for  bapto. 

"2.  We  may  barely  have  a  case  of  partial  dip,  but 
it  is  extremely  doubtful. 

"3.     More  likely  in  both  cases  it  is  aspersion. 

"4.  Any  way,  one  of  them  is  a  clear  case  of 
aspersion,  in  the  first  known  Greek  author. 


38         Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"The  well-known  Greek  author,  ^schylus,  born  B.  C. 
520,  uses  it  to  express  the  staining  of  a  sword  by  slaughter ; 
and  staining  of  clothes  by  the  blood  of  the  victim  spurting 
upon  them. 

"i.  'For  the  wife  has  deprived  each  husband  of 
life,  staining  {haps  as  a)  the  sword  by  slaughter.'  The 
sword  is  not  immersed  in  the  blood  of  the  victim ;  but  the 
blood  flows  from  the  wound  inflicted  by  it,  and  (bapsasa) 
stains  it. 

"2.  The  second  case  is  thus  given:  'This  garment 
stained  (ebaphaen)  by  the  blood  of  ^gisthus  is  a  witness 
to  me.' 

"Here  the  blood  spurts  out  from  the  wound  and  be- 
sprinkles or  affuses  the  garment,  staining  it,  and  witnesses 
of  the  violent  death  of  the  victim. 

"3.  Here  again,  in  the  next  writer  we  have  after 
Homer  who  uses  bapto,  bapto  is  used  for  a  clear  case  of 
affusion. 

"4.  Aristophanes,  born  B.  C.  450.  He  uses  bapto 
more  frequently. 

"(i)  Speaking  of  Magnes,  an  old  comic  writer  of 
Athens,  he  says,  'Smearing  himself  (baptomenos)  with 
frog-colored  paints'  (batracheiois). 

"(a)  Here  bapto  applies  where  there  is  no  dip,  no 
plunge. 

"(6)  The  coloring  matter  is  applied  to  the  object 
bapted.     .     Putting  coloring  matter  on  his  face  bapted  it. 

"(2)  'Do  not  adorn  yourself  with  garments  of 
variegated  appearance,  colored  (bapton)  at  great  cost.' 
Here  the  colors  seem  to  the  effect  of  needle- work,  as 
often  now  occurred,  taking  different  colors  and  working 
them  into  garments,  thus  bapting  them.  Bapto  came 
thus  to  apply  to  Nature's  colors,  to  birds   of   color,  to 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         39 

precious  stones  of  beautiful  colors,  etc.  Hence  Aris- 
tophanes— 

"(3)     Ornis  baptos,  'a  colored  bird.' 

*  *  (a)     Dipping,  plunging,  is  out  of  the  question  here. 

"(6)  The  variegated  plumage  was  bapted  thus  as 
it  grew. 

"Thus  bapto  applies  where  no  mode  is  specially  in- 
volved, the  coloring  matter  effecting  the  bapted  condition 
by  the  most  delicate  touches.  To  put  it  nicely,  here 
bapto  by  streams  or  parts  of  drops  so  small  that  only  a 
microscope  could  discover  them  to  our  eyes  effected  a 
bapted  condition.  The  birds  and  stones  were  bapted  by 
these  delicate  affusions  and  infusions.  Hence  Greeks, 
Hebrews,  and  Arabians  used  these  phrases:  'Sprinkled 
with  colors,'  'Sprinkled  with  gray.'    Again  Aristophanes — 

"(4)  A  bully  speaking,  says,  'Lest  I  stain  you 
(bapso)  with  a  Sardinian  hue'  (bomma).  Here  bapto 
occurs  twice  in  its  different  forms. 

* '  (a)     There  is  no  dip,  no  plunge. 

"(6)  The  meaning,  as  all  lexicons  agree,  is,  that  the 
bully  would  strike  the  other  party  on  the  mouth  with  his 
fist,  give  him  a  bloody  mouth  or  nose.  The  blood  issuing 
out  would  stain  his  face. 

"(c)  Clearly  enough  the  bapto  here  bapted  the 
object  by  affusion. 

"6.  Hippocrates,  born  B.  C.  430.  This  noted 
Greek,  quoted  by  Carson  (Baptist),  says  of  a  dyeing  sub- 
stance, 'when  it  drops  (epitaxae)  upon  the  garments,  they 
are  stained  (baptetai),  dyed.'     Notice  now — 

"i.  We  have  had  no  case  where  a  complete  en- 
velopment even  for  a  moment  has  been  effected  by  bapto 
from  Homer  to  Hippocrates 

"We  have  now  gone  over  the  period  from  Homer  to 
Plato,  who  comes  next.     In  all  these  periods  of  six  hun- 


40         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

dred  years,  among  the  most  illustrious  writers  Greece 
ever  produced,  we  find  the  following  exhibit: 

"i.     Not  once  does  bapto  mean  immerse — i.  e.,  sink. 

"2.     Not  once  does  it  totally  dip  the  whole  object. 

"3.     Only  three  times  do  we  find  it  for  a  partial  dip. 

"4.  In  no  instance  does  it  apply  to  or  describe  the  act 
performed  by  Baptists  when  they  baptize. 

"5.  It  frequently  applies  to  the  mode  of  those  who 
baptize  by  affusion,  and  to  the  exact  mode,  effusion,  as- 
persion, though  not  any  single  exclusive  mode,  and  the 
application  in  any  decent  mode  is  what  we  require  in 
baptism. 

"6.  The  prevailing  action  or  mode  involved  in 
bapto  as  yet  is  aspersion,  effusion,  affusion. 

"7.     The  primary  force  of  the  word  is  aspersion." 

"Bapto"  from  Plato  to  Aristotle,  etc. 

"i.  Plato,  born  B.  C.  400,  uses  bapto  repeatedly, 
and  uses  it  for  dye  and  dip;  and,  as  we  promptly  grant 
this,  we  need  not  quote  passages. 

"2.  Alcibiades,  born  B.  C.  400,  alluding  to  the  of- 
fensive and  opprobrious  epithets  applied  to  him  by  a 
comedian  in  the  play  called  'Baptce,'  says:  'You  as- 
pers-^d  (baptes)  me  [with  the  abusive  epithets]  in  your 
play.' 

"i.  Here  bapto  is  used  by  both  parties — the  one 
calling  his  play  'Baptce,'  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  applying 
bapto  to  speech. 

"2.  All  metaphorical  use  is  based  on  a  prior  Hteral 
use  of  words,  as  no  one  will  question. 

' '  (3)  In  Greek,  as  we  see  elsewhere,  and  elaborately, 
and  in  Arabic,  in  Latin,  and  in  English,  abuse  is  repre- 
sented by  words  meaning  to  sprinkle  and  to  pour  con- 
stantly. 'Foul  aspersion,'  'base  aspersion,'  is  a  common 
English   phrase.     'Pour   abuse   upon'   is   another.      We 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,        41 

never  say  that  we  'dip  a  man  in  abuse/  'plunge  him 
into  abuse.' 

"Here  is,  therefore,  a  clear  use  of  bapto  by  both 
parties,  and  by  Greek  comedians  generally,  that  shows 
sprinkle  to  be  the  primary  meaning  of  bapto.  And  the 
writer  uses  the  words  'streams  more  bitter'  as  the  means 
with  which  he,  in  a  volley  of  words,  would  baptize  him, 
not  merely  bapt  him. 

"3.  The  great  Aristotle,  born  B.  C.  384,  comes  next 
in  chronological  order  as  using  the  word.  He  uses  the 
word  where  there  is  a  partial  dip,  and  where  also  objects 
are  colored,  and  where  dyeing  is  by  dipping.  Then  also 
thus,  speaking  of  a  dyeing  substance:  'Being  pressed,  it 
moistens  (baptei)  and  dyes  (anthidzei)  the  hand.' 

"i.     There  is  no  dip,  plunge,  immerse  here. 

"2.  Like  nearly  all  the  cases  cited,  it  is  a  literal  use 
of  bapto,  not  a  metaphorical  one. 

"3.  The  fluid  came  out  upon  the  hand — effusion 
was  the  literal  mode  by  which  the  object  was  moistened. 

"4.  It  is  such  a  delicate  effusion  that  it  merely 
moistens  the  hand. 

"(5)  The  effect  of  its  being  coloring  matter  that 
was  pressed  was  to  dye  or  stain  the  hand ;  and  bapto  does 
not  express  that,  but  anthidzo  does,  which  primarily  ap- 
plies to  sprinklings.  See  the  word  and  the  lexicons  on  it 
in  the  next  chapter.  .  Anthidzo  is  defined  'to  sprinkle,' 
'stain,'  'color,'  'strew  with  flowers,'  'paint,' 

"4.  Diodorus  Siculus,  B.  C.  69-30:  'Coats  (bap- 
tais)  colored  and  flowered  with  various  colors.'  'Native 
warmth  has  tinged  (ebapsen)  the  above  varieties  of  the 
growth  of  things  [i.  e.,  birds,  precious  stones,  etc.]  before 
mentioned.' 

"Omitting  dates  now,  the  writers  of  this  period  speak 
on  this  wise:     Plutarch,  VI.,  p.  680:     'Then  perceiving 


42         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

that  his  beard  was  colored  (baptomenon)  and  his  head.' 
^Han:  'The  Indians  dyed  {baptontai)  their  beards.' 
Marcus  Antonius  speaks  of  the  soul  tinged  (baptetai)  by 
the  thoughts:  'Tinge  (bapto)  it  then  by  accustoming 
yourself  to  such  thoughts.' 

"Here  still  bapto  continues  to  be  used  where — 

"i.  There  is  no  dip,  plunge,  and  immerse  is  never  a 
meaning  of  the  word. 

"2.  It  is  applied  where  the  coloring  matter  is  ap- 
plied to  the  hair,  to  the  beard,  and  in  many  cases  to  the 
cheeks,  the  eyes,  as  in  the  case  of  the  priests  of  Cotytto, 
given  elsewhere. 

"3.  In  only  two  cases  yet  have  we  found  it  applied 
to  simple  water,  and  no  immersion  was  found;  and  we 
have  come  down  to  the  period  after  Christ."  (Ditzler  on 
"Baptism,"  pp.  113  to  122.) 

We  have  quoted  so  largely  from  Dr.  Ditzler's  incom- 
parable book  because  he  has  furnished  the  examples  in 
which  bapto  occurs  from  its  first  appearance  in  Homer,  a 
thousand  years  before  Christ,  in  chronological  order  to 
Plutarch  and  Marcus  Antom'nus,  A.  D.  150. 

This  clearly  proves,  beyond  reasonable  controversy, 
that  the  primary  meaning  of  bapto  was  to  tinge,  to  stain, 
to  dye,  to  color,  and  that  the  prevailing  mode  by  which 
this  was  done  was  by  affusion  or  aspersion,  and  not  dipping, 
or  immersion,  and  that  these  meanings  are  secondary, 
taken  on  later  in  its  history,  because  things  are  sometimes 
dipped  or  immersed  for  the  purpose  of  dyeing  or  coloring 
them.  I  am  sorry  that  I  am  compelled  to  differ  from  my 
distinguished  friend  and  brother  Dr.  Ditzler  on  the  pri- 
mary meaning  of  bapto.  His  position,  that  it  primarily 
means  to  sprinkle,  I  do  not  think  is  sustained  by  his  ex- 
amples, and  yet  the  prevailing  mode  of  the  staining, 
dyeing,  etc.,  was  unquestionably  by  sprinkling  or  affusion; 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        43 

but  hapto  and  its  derivative  haptidzo  are  not  words  of 
mode,  but  of  denomination — they  express  a  thing  done, 
not  the  manner  of  doing  it ;  that  must  be  learned  outside 
the  words,  and  is  not  embraced  in  them.  In  this  first 
occurrence  of  hapto  it  expresses  the  shghtest  tingeing 
of  the  lake  with  the  blood  of  the  frog,  as  it  spurted  from 
the  wound  upon  the  surface  of  the  lake.  The  mode  of  this 
tingeing  was  sprinkling,  but  that  was  not  expressed  by 
hapto.  This  is  fully  brought  out  in  the  example  from 
Hippocrates,  where  he  says:  "When  it  drops  (epitaxae) 
upon  the  garments,  they  are  dyed,  or  stained."  Here 
hapto  expresses  the  thing  done — the  staining,  coloring,  or 
dyeing;  but  epitaxae,  to  drop,  expresses  the  mode  of  doing 
it.  Numerous  other  examples  show  the  same  thing, 
which  clearly  proves  to  my  mind  that  hapto  is  not  a  word 
of  mode,  but  of  denomination. 

Let  us  now  examine  some  of  Dr.  Carson's  examples 
from  classical  use.  Remember,  he  says:  "As  expressive 
of  mode,  the  derivative  cannot  go  beyond  its  primitive. 
As  to  totality  of  immersion,  the  one  is  perfectly  equiv- 
alent to  the  other."     (Carson  on  "Baptism,"  p.  23.) 

A  number  of  his  examples  are  taken  from  the  pre- 
scriptions of  Hippocrates,  and  do  not  have  reference  to 
mode  at  all.  Take  the  following  examples:  "Having 
dipped  {hapto)  a  piece  of  linen  into  soft  Eretrian  earth, 
well  pounded  and  warm,  cover  the  breast  round  with  it." 
It  is  evident  that  there  was  no  dipping  or  immersion  in 
this  case ;  the  idea  of  dip  was  not  in  the  physician's  mind. 
The  soft  Eretrian  earth  was  to  be  spead  upon  the  linen 
cloth  —  the  cloth  could  not  be  dipped  into  it.  "Dip- 
ping [the  plaster]  into  the  oil  of  roses."  No  physician 
ever  prescribed  a  blister-plaster  to  be  dipped  into  any 
thing  before  applying.  The  plaster  was  to  be  moistened 
by  spreading  the  oil  of  roses  over   its  surface  before 


44         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

being  applied;  and  this  is  expressed  by  bapto.  Dip  is 
clearly  out  of  the  question  here.  Speaking  of  a  certain 
mixture,  he  says:  "After  this,  having  dipped  it  into  the 
oil  of  roses,  or  Egyptian  oil,  let  it  be  applied  during  the 
day."  This  is  the  celebrated  bhster-plaster,  which  we 
will  more  fully  discuss  when  we  come  to  the  meaning  of 
haptidzo.  Surely  there  was  no  dip  or  immerse  here.  As 
in  the  former  case,  the  oil  was  applied  to  the  surface  of  the 
plaster  before  being  applied.  No  sane  man,  it  seems  to 
us,  could  ever  suppose  that  a  physician  would  prescribe 
the  immersion  of  a  blister-plaster  in  oil  before  applying. 
Nearly  all  of  Dr.  Carson's  examples  are  like  these,  or 
refer  to  moistening  things  before  applying,  or  moistening 
things  before  eating  them ;  yet  in  every  case  he  translates 
hapto  to  dip !  In  all  such  examples  the  idea  of  immersion 
is  utterly  out  of  the  question.  This  shows  us  how  hard 
pressed  Dr.  Carson  was  to  find  authority  for  immersion 
in  the  word  hapto. 

Scriptural  Examples  of  the  Use  of  ''Bapto.'' 
Dr.  Carson's  examples  from  Scriptures  of  the  use  of 
hapto  fail  as  utterly  to  sustain  his  position  as  his  examples 
from  classical  use. 

His  first  example  is  Exodus  xii.  12:  "And  ye  shall 
take  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  blood  that  is  in 
the  basin, "  etc.  Here  is  no  immersion  of  the  bunch  of 
hyssop  dipped  in  the  blood.  The  end  or  top  of  the  bunch 
of  hyssop  was  partially  dipped,  but  the  bunch  was  not 
immersed.  To  partially  dip  an  object  for  the  purpose  of 
sprinkling,  as  in  this  case,  and  to  dip  in  the  sense  of  im- 
mersion are  certainly  not  the  same  kind  of  a  dip,  and  the 
one  cannot  be  pleaded  as  authority  for  the  other.  His 
next  three  examples  (Leviticus  iv.  6  and  17  and  ix.  9) 
are  of  the  priest  dipping  his  finger  in  blood  for  the  purpose 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        45 

of  sprinkling  it.  This  is  but  a  partial  dipping  of  the 
finger ;  there  is  no  immersion  in  any  of  these  cases. 

Another  example  is  Leviticus  xiv.  16:  "The  priest 
shall  dip  his  right  finger  in  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left  hand, 
and  shall  sprinkle  of  the  oil  with  his  finger  seven  times 
before  the  Lord."  There  is  surely  no  dipping  in  the  sense 
of  immersion  here,  for  immersion  was  out  of  the  question. 
In  this  passage  there  is  no  dipping  m,  but  a  dipping  from; 
apo  is  used  here  in  the  Septuagint,  and  not  en.  The  finger 
was  moistened  from  or  by  means  of  the  oil,  and  not  im- 
mersed in  it,  for  that  would  have  been  impossible.  Here 
bapto  means  to  moisten  or  besmear  the  finger  for  the  pur- 
pose of  sprinkling.  All  such  examples  are  against  im- 
mersion, and  are  on  our  side. 

Here  are  some  more  of  Dr.  Carson's  examples: 
Deuteronomy  xxxiii.  24:  "Let  him  dip  his  foot  in  oil." 
Psalm  Ixviii.  23:  "That  thy  feet  may  be  dipped  in  the 
blood  of  thine  enemies,  and  the  tongue  of  thy  dogs  in  the 
same."  Here  there  is  no  immersion.  The  foot  was  not 
immersed  "in  oil,"  nor  were  the  feet  immersed  "in 
blood,"  much  less  "the  tongue  of  the  dogs."  A  dog  never 
immerses  his  tongue  when  he  laps  up  either  water  or 
blood.  There  could  be  no  possible  immersion  in  this 
case,  yet  bapto  is  used  to  express  the  act  of  a  dog  lapping 
up  blood.  Ruth  ii.  14 :  " Dip  thy  morsel  in  the  vinegar." 
Surely  no  one  will  contend  that  bapto  here  means  to  im- 
merse. Yet  Dr.  Carson,  the  ablest  writer  on  the  side  of 
immersion,  produces  these  examples  to  prove  that  bapto 
always  means  to  dip,  in  the  sense  of  immerse,  where  it 
does  not  mean  to  dye. 

If  bapto,  then,  as  to  mode,  expresses  a  partial  dipping, 
or  moistening  of  the  surface,  as  we  have  shown  from  Dr. 
Carson's  own  examples,  both  from  the  classical  and  the 
Scriptural  use  of  the  word,  then  baptidzo  cannot  go  beyond 


46         The  .Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

it  as  to  mode,  and  consequently  it  may  and  often  does 
mean  a  partial  dipping,  wetting,  or  moistening  of  the 
surface. 

Dr.  Carson  says  on  Job  ix.  31:  "What  our  trans- 
lators render,  'Yet  shalt  thou  plunge  me  in  the  ditch,* 
etc.,  in  the  Greek  is,  'Thou  hast  dipped  me  deeply  in 
filth.'"  The  Greek  reads:  "iKavois  ev  pviria  fie  e/Jai/^as, 
ifSSiXv^aTo  Si  fie  ^  (TToXrj.''  This  may  be  properly  trans- 
lated, "Thou  hast  besmeared  me  with  filth,  and  my  own 
clothes  abhor  me."  There  is  no  word  in  the  passage  sig- 
nifying "deeply,"  and  hence  Dr.  Carson  had  no  authority 
to  translate  it ,  "  Thou  hast  dipped  me  deeply  in  filth. ' '  The 
connection  shows  that  it  was  the  hands  that  were  defiled 
with  filth,  and  not  clothes.  In  verses  30  and  31  (the 
common  version)  we  read:  "If  I  wash  myself  with  snow 
water,  and  make  my  hands  never  so  clean,  yet  shalt 
thou  plunge  me  in  the  ditch,  and  mine  own  clothes 
shall  abhor  me."  The  hands  were  "washed  with  snow 
water."  It  was  the  hands  that  were  again  made  foul. 
Rupoo  means  filthy  or  to  make  foul  or  filthy.  There  is 
neither  plunge  nor  ditch  in  the  passage.  Our  common 
version  is  very  faulty,  and  Dr.  Carson's  is  more  so.  The 
hands  which  had  been  made  clean  were  made  foul  again 
by  besmearing  them  with  filth.  This  is  further  con- 
firmed by  the  latter  clause  of  verse  31,  "mine  own  clothes 
shall  abhor  me."  Had  he  been  plunged  in  the  ditch  of 
filth,  his  clothes  would  have  been  defiled,  or  befouled, 
and  they  could  not  have  been  said  to  "abhor"  him,  but 
he  would  have  "abhorred"  them — they  would  have  been 
the  objects  defiled.  But  it  was  the  person  that  was  defiled 
or  befouled,  and  not  the  clothes.  The  clean  clothes  "ab- 
horred" the  filthy  person.  This  demonstrates  the  fact 
that  it  was  the  hands  which  had  been  made  clean  that 
were  made  foul  again,  and  that  this  befouling  of  the  hands 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        47 

was  a  bapting  of  the  person.  Here  bapto  can  mean  only 
a  besmearing  of  the  hands.  There  is  no  dip  or  immerse 
in  this  case.     It  must  be  given  up  by  immersionists. 

We  will  take  one  more  example  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament— Daniel  iv.  33  and  v.  21.  We  have  bapto  used  in 
both  places.     The  exact  language  as  used  in  the  Sep- 

tuagint  is :      *  *  koI  aTrb  t^?  Spocrov  Tov  ovpavov  to   (TOifxa    avTOv 

i/Sd<f>rj."  The  literal  and  exact  translation  of  this  pass- 
age is:  "And  from  the  dew  of  heaven  his  body  was 
wet,"  or  "sprinkled."  There  is  no  possible  chance  of  dip 
or  immerse  here ;  his  body  was  not  bapted  into  (eis)  or  in 
(en)  the  dew  of  heaven,  but  from  (apo)  the  dew  of  heaven. 
This  bapting  was  done  with  simple  water — the  dew  falling 
upon  his  body  from  heaven.  Bapto  does  not  mean  here 
*  *  to  dye , ' '  neither  does  it  mean ' '  to  dip " ;  i  t  means  '  *  to  wet ' ' 
— but  the  mode  is  sprinkling. 

It  will  not  do  to  parade  the  copious  dews  of  the 
valley  of  the  Euphrates,  as  our  immersionist  friends  do, 
until  the  body  of  the  king  was  as  wet  as  if  it  had  been  im- 
mersed; for  Dr.  Carson  tells  us  bapto  does  not  mean  "to 
wet  any  more  than  it  does  to  dry.''  He  says:  "When  it 
does  not  mean  dye,  it  means  modb,  and  nothing  but 
MODE."  It  does  not  mean  "to  dye"  here,  and  conse- 
quently it  must  mean  mode,  Dr.  Carson  being  judge;  and 
that  MODE  is  not  immersion,  but  the  lightest  kind  of 
SPRINKLING — the  distilling  of  the  dew  of  heaven  upon  the 
body  of  the  king.  Now,  if  bapto  means  "to  sprinkle,"  as  it 
unquestionably  does  here,  and  bapto  and  baptidzo  are  ex- 
actly equivalent  as  to  mode,  then  baptidzo  means  "to 
sprinkle,"  and  our  contention  is  proven  to  be  true. 

Bapto  is  used  six  times  in  the  New  Testament:  three 
times  it  is  simple  bapto  (John  xiii.  26;  lyuke  xvi.  24;  Rev- 
elation xix.  13),  and  embapto  three  times  (Matthew  xxvi. 
23;  Mark  xiv.  29;  John  xiii.  46).     Four  of  these  passages 


48         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

refer  to  the  same  thing — the  dipping  in  the  dish  with 
Jesus,  and  it  does  not  mean  "immerse"  in  any  of  these 
examples,  but  only  a  slight  contact  of  the  morsel  with 
the  fluid  in  the  dish,  just  as  we  dip  bread  in  gravy;  and 
they  are  squarely  against  the  idea  of  immersion,  and  the 
meaning  of  both  embapto  and  bapto  in  all  these  examples 
is  that  of  moistening  the  morsel  preparatory  to  eating. 
In  Luke  it  is,  "dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water."  Here 
again  we  have  only  a  slight  touch. 

In  Revelation  xix.  13  it  means  to  sprinkle  the  gar- 
ments of  the  conquering  Lord  with  the  blood  of  His  en- 
emies spurting  from  their  wounds  on  His  garments. 
There  are  three  readings  of  this  passage  that  have  come 
down  to  us  from  the  early  Christian  centuries :  * '  bebam- 
menon''  from  bapto,  in  the  commonly  received  text;  ''per- 
irerammenon,"  from  raino,  in  the  Sinaitic;  and  ''eran- 
tismenon,"  from  rantidzo,  in  Origen's  text.  Wescott  and 
Hort  follow  Origen's  text,  and  put  in  ''erantismenon." 
These  three  words  are  used  in  different  manuscripts  and 
by  different  Greek  writers  to  express  the  same  thing. 
There  is  no  controversy  about  the  meaning  of  raino  and 
rantidzo;  all  admit  that  they  mean  "to  sprinkle" ;  and  we 
have  proved  beyond  controversy  that  bapto  has  this 
meaning.  These  are  interchangeable  words,  used  by  the 
Greek  fathers  to  express  the  same  thing. 

Irenaeus,  a  celebrated  Greek  father  of  the  second  cent- 
ury, Bishop  of  Lyons,  born  but  a  few  years  after  the  death 
of  the  Apostle  John,  and  a  disciple  of  the  noted  Polycarp, 
quotes  Revelation  xix.  13,  "where  it  is  bapto  bebamme- 
non,  and  translates  it,  'And  He  was  clothed  with  a  vest- 
ure SPRINKLED  with  blood.'  "  (Ditzler  on  "Baptism," 
p.  124.) 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        49 

Origen,  as  we  have  seen,  about  A.  D.  250,  the  most 
learned  of  the  Greek  fathers,  uses  rantidzo  (erantismenon) 
instead  of  bebammenon,  sprinklKd  with  blood. 

"Hyppol3rtus,  the  learned  Greek  archbishop,  A.  D. 
220,  copies  the  common  reading  of  Revelation  xix.  13, 
bapto,  thus:  'And  he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  bebam- 
menon bapted,'  in  our  version  'dipped  in  blood' ;  and  adds: 
'See,  brethren,  how  the  vesture,  sprinkled  with  blood, 
denoted,'  "  etc.     (Ibid.) 

Now,  we  ask,  did  these  eminent  Greek  fathers,  un- 
derstand their  own  language?  If  they  did,  then  bapto 
means  to  sprinkle. 

The  ancient  versions  usually  translate  bapto,  in  Rev- 
elation xix.  13,  i'/'rm^/g. 

"  I .  The  Syriac  renders  this  case  by  sprinkle.  That 
part  of  the  Peshito  was  made  later  than  the  rest,  yet  by 
the  close  of  the  second  century  or  dawn  of  the  third. 

"2.  The  old  Itala,  made  undoubtedly  by  the  close 
of  the  apostolic  age,  renders  bapto  here  by  sprinkle 
(aspersa) . 

"3.  The  Coptic  (third  century  A.  D.)  translates  it 
sprinkle. 

"4.     The  Basmuric  renders  it  sprinkle. 

"5.  The  Sahidic  (second  century  A.  D.)  renders  it 
sprinkle. 

"6.  The  Bthiopic  (fourth  century  A.  D.)  renders  it 
sprinkle. 

"7.  The  Lutheran  (sixteenth  century)  renders  it 
sprinkle  (bespringt). 

"8.  The  lyusitanian  has  it  sprinkle  (salpacado) ." 
(Ibid.) 

We  have  spent  so  much  time  and  pains  on  the 
meaning  of  bapto  because  the  leading  immersionist  writers, 
such  as  Gale,  Carson,  and  Campbell,  tell  us  that  as  to 


50         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

mode,  where  bapto  does  not  mean  to  dye,  it  and  haptidzo 
are  exactly  synonymous.  Before  we  have  reached  hap- 
tidzo we  have  proved  that  it  means  to  moisten,  to  pour 
upon,  to  sprinkle.  Gale,  Carson,  and  Campbell  being 
judges. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

' '  Baptidzo  " — Thk  Lexicons. 

It  is  a  very  common  thing  to  hear  the  advocates  of 
immersion  affirm  that  all  the  lexicographers,  critics,  and 
scholars  agree  with  them  as  to  the  meaning  of  baptidzo. 
Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  truth ;  and  some  of  the 
ablest  and  most  conscientious  writers  on  that  side  admit 
that  the  lexicographers  and  scholars  are  all  against  them. 

Dr.  Alexander  Carson,  one  of  the  very  ablest  and 
most  conscientious  writers  on  the  side  of  immersion,  says : 

"My  position  is.  That  it  always  signifies  to  dip; 
never  expressing  anything  but  mode."  [The  capitals 
are  his.] 

"Now,  as  I  have  all  the  lexicographers  and  com- 
mentators against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will  be  necessary 
for  me  to  say  a  word  or  two  with  respect  to  the  authority 
of  lexicons.  Many  may  be  startled  at  the  idea  of  re- 
fusing to  submit  to  the  unanimous  authority  of  lexicons, 
as  an  instance  of  the  boldest  skepticism.  'Are  lexicons,' 
it  may  be  said,  *of  no  authority?'  Now,  I  admit  that 
lexicons  are  an  authority,  but  they  are  not  an  ultimate 
authority.  Lexicographers  have  been  guided  by  their 
judgment  in  examining  the  various  passages  in  which  a 
word  occurs,  and  it  is  still  competent  for  any  man  to  have 
recourse  to  the  same  source.  The  meaning  of  a  word 
must  ultimately  be  determined  by  an  actual  inspection  of 
the  passages  in  which  it  occurs,  as  often  as  any  one 
chooses  to  dispute  the  judgment  of  the  lexicographer. 
The  use  of  a  word,  as  it  occurs  in  the  writers  of  authority 

51 


52         The  Scripturcd  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

in  the  English  language,  is  an  appeal  that  any  man  is  en- 
titled to  make  against  the  decision  of  Dr.  Johnson  him- 
self. The  practice  of  a  language  is  the  House  of  Lords, 
which  is  competent  to  revise  the  decisions  of  all  dic- 
tionaries."    (Carson  on  "Baptism,"  pp.  56-57.) 

lyCt  not  any  immersionists  after  this  come  forward 
and  tell  us  that  all  the  lexicographers,  commentators, 
scholars,  and  critics  are  on  their  side.  This  greatest  of 
immersionist  writers  declares  Th^y  are  all  against  him. 
And  he  appeals  to  "the  House  of  Lords,"  "the  supreme 
court  of  language — USE,"  which  he  declares  is  "the  sole 
arbiter  of  language,"  against  "The  unanimous"  authority 
of  the  lexicons. 

Is  this  statement  of  Dr.  Carson  true,  that  "all  lex- 
icographers and  commentators"  are  against  him?  It  un- 
questionably is,  and  Dr.  Carson  was  too  honest  and  too 
scholarly  to  deny  it.  I  want  to  call  attention  to  some 
facts  in  regard  to  the  lexicons. 

1.  It  is  a  fact  that  no  lexicon  on  earth  gives  the 
single  and  alone  definition  to  haptidzo  of  to  dip,  plunge, 
or  immerse.  Not  one  of  them  defines  it  to  mean  alone  to 
put  under  water  momentarily  and  immediately  withdraw, 
or  lift  up  again,  which  is  the  specific  action  or  mode  of 
baptism  for  which  immersionists  contend. 

2.  All  the  old  lexicographers,  from  Robert  Stephens 
down,  who  give  their  definitions  in  Latin,  give  lavo  as  one 
of  the  definitions  of  haptidzo.  If  there  is  an  exception 
to  this,  I  have  never  found  it.  Now  we  know  that  the 
modal  meaning  of  lavo  is  to  besprinkle;  hence,  every  one 
of  these  old  lexicographers  gives  "to  besprinkle"  as  one 
of  the  definitions  of  haptidzo. 

3.  Two  of  the  best  modern  Greek  lexicographers, 
Gazes  and  Kouma,  give,  among  the  first  definitions  of 
haptidzo,  "Brecho,  to  rain,  to  pour  upon,  to  sprinkle." 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        53 

•  4.  Many  of  the  best  modern  German  lexicographers 
and  scholars  give  "to  sprinkle,"  or  "to  pour  upon,"  as 
definitions  of  baptidzo;  many  of  them  giving  these  among 
the  first  definitions  of  this  word. 

5.  The  New  Testament  lexicons  usually  give  "to 
wash"  as  the  first  meaning  of  baptidzo,  and  "to  dip  or 
immerse"  as  secondary  meanings.  Immersionists,  to  get 
rid  of  the  force  of  this  latter  fact,  try  to  make  it  appear 
that  this  is  claimed  to  be  a  sacred  or  Scriptural  sense  that 
the  word  does  not  have  in  common  use  among  the  He- 
brews. But  this  is  a  great  mistake.  It  was  the  ordinary 
use  among  the  Jews  of  the  word  for  three  hundred  years 
before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  up  to  that  time.  It  is  to 
this  ordinary  use  of  the  word  among  the  Jews  to  which 
we  appeal  as  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  New 
Testament  as  the  only  safe  rule  of  interpretation.  But 
we  will  discuss  this  question  more  fully  in  another  chapter. 
In  confirmation  of  the  statements  here  made,  we  will 
quote  from  a  number  of  lexicons : 

1 .  " Stkphanus  (Robert  Stephens,  1572)  defines  bap- 
tidzo thus:  'Mergo,  sen  immergo,  ut  quce  tingendi  aut 
abluendi  gratia  aqua  immergimus :  Mergo,  submergo,  obruo 
aqua;  abluo,  lavo.'  'To  dip,  immerse,  as  we  immerse 
things  for  the  purpose  of  coloring  or  washing  them;  to 
merge,  submerge,  to  cover  with  water;  to  cleanse,  to 
wash.'  " 

2.  "Scapula  thus  defines  the  word  baptizo:  'Mer- 
go, seu  immergo — Item  tingo:  ut  quce  tingendi;  aut  abluendi 
gratia  aqua  immergimus.  Item  mergo,  submergo,  obruo 
aquea: — Item  abluo,  lavo.  (Mark  7;  Luke  11.)'  'To  dip 
or  immerse — also  to  dye,  as  we  immerse  things  for  the 
purpose  of  coloring  or  washing  them;  also  to  plunge, 
submerge,  to  cover  with  water;  also  to  cleanse,  to  wash. 
(Mark  7;  Luke  11.)'" 


54         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

3.  "HedERICUS  thus  defines  baptize:  'Mergo,  im- 
mergo,  aqua  abruo;  (2)  abluo,  lava;  (3)  baptizo,  significatu 
sacro.'  'To  dip,  immerse,  to  cover  with  water;  (2)  to 
cleanse;  (3)  to  baptize  in  a  sacred  sense.'" 

4.  "SCHLKUSNER  defines  baptizo  not  only  to  plunge, 
immerse,  but  to  cleanse,  wash,  to  purify  with  water; 
{abluo,  lava,  aqua  purgo.) " 

5.  "BrETSCHNHidEr:  'Proprice,  septus  intingo,  se- 
pius  lava;  deinde  (i)  lava,  abluo,  simpliciter;  medium,  etc., 
lavo  me,  abluo  me.'  'Properly,  often  to  dip,  often  to 
wash;  then  (i)  simply  to  wash,  to  cleanse;  in  the  middle 
voice,  I  wash  or  cleanse  myself.'  " 

6.  "SuiDAS  defines  baptizo  not  only  to  sink,  plunge, 
immerse,  but  to  wet,  wash,  cleanse,  purify,  etc.;  (made- 
facio,  lavo,  abluo,  purgo,  mundo.)" 

These  we  have  taken  from  "Campbell  and  Rice 
Debate,"  p.  69. 

7.  ScHREVEUUS  defines  it:  "Baptizo,  mergo,  lavo," 
"To  baptize,  to  immerse,  to  wash." 

I  wish  to  call  special  attention  to  Bretschneider,  one 
of  the  very  best,  who  gives  lavo  as  one  of  the  first  mean- 
ings of  baptidzo,  "Properly,  often  to  dip,  often  to  wash." 
But  this  is  not  all;  he  adds,  "then  simply  to  wash." 

Now  I  want  to  call  particular  attention  to  the  two 
most  noted  modern  Greek  lexicographers,  and  I  want  to 
call  attention  to  their  definitions  of  baptidzo: 

8.  "Gazes:  'Baptidzo:  To  put  frequently  any 
thing  into  any  thing,  and  thence  upon  it;  to  shed  forth 
anything;  to  water;  to  pour  upon;  to  wash.  (2)  To 
draw  or  pump  water ;  to  put  a  vessel  into  a  place  of  water 
that  I  may  pour  out.  (3)  To  wash  the  hands  or  to  wash 
oneself.  (4)  Among  Christians,  to  baptize.'  "  (Ditzler 
on  "Baptism,"  pp.  152-153.) 

In  a  foot-note  Dr.  Ditzler  says: 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        55 

"Gazes  was  a  native  of  Melias,  Thessaly.  He  was 
educated  at  Venice,  traveled  over  Europe ;  was  one  of  the 
most  learned  of  Greeks ;  was  a  member  of  the  commit- 
tee that  framed  and  signed  the  Declaration  of  Grecian 
Independence.  He  put  forth  his  lexicon,  founded  on 
Schneider's,  with  changes  and  improvements,  at  Venice, 
three  volumes  quarto,  which  the  learned  Hilarion  fol- 
lowed, who,  with  the  approval  of  his  archbishop,  revised 
the  translation  of  the  Bible  by  the  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society."     {Ibid.,  p.  153.) 

Here  is  the  definition  in  full :    "  BaTrTt'^a)  M.  o-w  {/Sa-n-Toi). 

Sivyva  /SovtC)   tl  /xecra   ets   tl  kol    ivrevOcv    dva    tov.      Bpe^co    rt 
TTOTt^to,    CTTt^wcOj  Xovoi.      2.    AvtXw  ^ovto)    €is    TO    vcpov   ayyciov 
TL  Slo.  vol  iK^aWo).       3.   ttXvvo)  Tois  ;^€tpaSj  r]  Xovofiai.        4.   Bair- 
Tiio)  Trapa  x/^to^'^tct.^ot?, "  etc. 

9.  "KouMA,  a  native  Greek  of  the  [last]  century, 
the  lexicon  written  at  great  length  in  modern  Greek: 
'Baptidzo,  from  bapto,  to  sink,  to  put  frequently  into 
water;  to  besprinkle;  shed  forth  (or  sprinkle).  2.  To 
draw  or  pump  water.  3.  In  an  ecclesiastical  sense,  to 
baptize.'  "     {Ibid.,  p.  141.) 

Here  is  his  defmition:  "  BaTrrt^w  M.  t'o-w  ck  tov  ySaTTTco; 
/8v  Oiiu)  ^VTO)  avxvf^Ki'i  et?  Ipov^  KaTaf3pc)((D^  (3pc)^o).  2.  AvtA-W. 
3.     BaTTTt'^o) ckkAt;?.      S." 

Here  the  reader  will  observe  that  both  these  great 
modern  Greek  lexicographers  put  brecho  in  their  defini- 
tions, which  means  "to  rain,  to  sprinkle,"  etc.;  while 
Gazes  puts  in  also  epichuno,  "to  pour  upon,"  and  ekballoo, 
"to  throw  out  or  on." 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  great  modern  German  lex- 
icographers, and  see  what  they  have  to  say  as  to  the 
meaning  of  baptidzo : 

10.  "SwARZius,  who  wrote  a  large  lexicon  of  very 
high    standing,    thus    defines    baptidzo:     'Baptidzo:    To 


56         The  Scrifhiral  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

baptize,  immerse,  to  overwhelm,  to  dip  into,  to  wash  by 
immersing.  Sometimes  to  sprinkle,  to  besprinkle,  to 
pour  upon,'  etc." 

11.  "SuicER,  whom  Dr.  Smith  thinks  the  best  lex- 
icon ever  prepared  for  the  interpretation  of  the  New 
Testament  words,  sums  up  his  remarks  on  the  meaning 
of  haptidzo  thus:  'Then  the  thing  signified  is  repre- 
sented by  immersion  or  sprinkling.'  " 

12.  "ScHNBiDER,  the  next  best  classic  lexicon,  is- 
sued at  Leibzig,  1819 :  'Baptidzo,  from  bapto,  I  dip  under; 
thence  as  brecho  [i,  e.,  moisten,  shed  forth,  sprinkle]. 
Also,  metaphorically,  to  be  thoroughly  drunk,  over- 
whelmed with  debts,  etc.  [classics  given];  ...  to 
wash,'  etc." 

13.  "WoLFius:  'This  word  [baptidzo,  Luke  xi.  38] 
means  washing  done  by  sprinkling.'  " 

14.  "Passow:  The  great  Passow,  the  master  crit- 
ic of  all  classic  lexicons,  to  whom  Liddell  and  Scott, 
Pickering,  and  all  others  now  profess  to  look  for  aid,  we 
reserve  as  the  last  Greek  lexicon  quoted,  next  to  the 
Thesaurus  of  Stephens  the  largest — three  large  volumes, 
the  first  containing  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-four 
double-column  pages,  fine  print.  He  thus  deposes :  'Bap- 
tidzo, from  bapto.  (i)  Oft  and  repeatedly  to  immerse,  sub- 
merse, with  eis  [into]  and^  pros  ti,  in  respect  to  any  thing. 
.  .  .  .  Thence  to  moisten,  to  wet,  to  sprinkle;  hoi 
bebaptismenoi,  translate,  made  drunk,  vino  madidi  [Latin, 
soaked  with  wine].  GenErai.ly  to  besprinkle,  to  pour 
UPON,  to  overwhelm,  to  burden  with  taxes,  with  debts 
(oppress),  to  confuse  with  questions.  (2)  Pump  water. 
(3)  Baptize,  suffer  oneself  to  be  baptized ;  also  to  bathe, 
to  wash.'  " 

15.  "RosT  and  Palm,  in  three  volumes,  the  latest 
save  Pape:  'Baptidzo:  Oft  and  repeatedly  to  immerse, 
to  submerse.     ...     To  moisten,  to  wet,  to  sprinkle, 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         57 

made  drunk,  vino  madidi.  Generally  to  besprinkle, 
TO  POUR  UPON,  to  overwhelm,  to  burden  with  taxes,  with 
debts,  to  oppress.  (2)  Draw  (or  pump)  water.  (3)  To 
baptize,  to  suffer  oneself  to  be  baptized;  also  to  bathe, 
to  wash.'  " 

16.  "Pape:  'Baptidzo:  To  immerse,  to  submerse, 
Plutarch  [extracts  and  renderings  given  to  sustain  this 
all  from  the  late  Greek];  to  moisten  [or  wet,]  to  besprin- 
kle [or  POUR  UPON,  to  besprinkle]  ;  {hoi  hebaptismenoi) 
those  drunk.  Plato.  To  overwhelm  with  debts,  Plutarch. 
(2)  To  draw  water  [out  of  any  thing],  etc.  (3)  In  the 
New  Testament  and  ecclesiastical  historians,  to  baptize. 
Middle  voice,  to  suffer  oneself  to  be  baptized.  Baptisma, 
the  baptism,  in  the  New  Testament.'  " 

These  modern  German  lexicons  I  have,  by  permis- 
sion, taken  from  Dr.  Ditzler's  incomparable  work  on 
''Baptism,"  pp.  157,  158,  159,  160,  161. 

Let  no  immersionist  ever  affirm  again,  that  no 
standard  lexicon  ever  gave  "to  sprinkle,"  or  "to  pour 
UPON,"  as  definitions  of  baptidzo.  Here  we  have  six 
of  the  old  lexicographers,  Stephens,  Scapula,  Hederi- 
cus,  Bretschneider,  and  Schrevelius,  all  giving  lavo  as  a 
meaning  of  baptidzo,  and  all  the  other  old  lexicographers 
not  quoted  do  the  same.  The  modal  action  of  lavo  is  to 
besprinkle.  Bretschneider,  one  of  the  very  best,  de- 
fines it:  "Properly,  often  to  dip,  often  to  wash,  (lavo) 
to  besprinkle;  then  (i)  simply  to  wash,  (lavo,  abluo) 
BESPRINKLE,  CLEANSE)."  2.  These  old  lexicographers 
all  refer  to  the  New  Testament,  where  it  means  lavo 
and  abluo — to  wash,  cleanse,  besprinklE.  3.  These  two 
eminent  modern  Greek  lexicographers  put  brecho,  "to 
rain,  to  sprinkle,"  among  the  first  definitions  of  bap- 
tidzo. 4.  Four  of  these  great  modern  German  lexicog- 
raphers give  "to  sprinkle"  along  with  "dip"  or  "immerse" 
—5— 


58         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

as  a  first  meaning  of  baptidzo.  In  the  light  of  these  unde- 
niable facts,  well  may  we  ask,  What  becomes  of  the  oft- 
repeated  statement  of  immersionists,  that  no  standard 
LEXICON  ever  defined  baptidzo  "to  sprinkle"  or  "to  pour 
upon"? 

But  we  have  a  few  more  lexicons  that  we  wish  to 
introduce : 

17.  Greenfield,  who  thus  defines  baptidzo:  "To 
immerse,  immerge,  submerge,  sink;  in  New  Testament 
to  wash,  to  perform  ablution,  cleanse.      (Mark  7:4;   Luke 

11:38.)" 

18.  Parkhurst:     ''Baptidzo:    To  dip,  immerse,  or 

plunge  in  water ;  but  in  the  New  Testament  it  occurs  not 
strictly  in  this  sense,  unless  so  far  as  this  is  included  in 
sense  II.  and  III.  below: 

"II.  Baptizomai:  Mid.  and  Pass.  To  wash  one's 
self,  to  be  washed,  etc. 

"III.  To  baptize,  to  immerse  in,  or  wash  with 
water  in  token  of  purification  from  sin,  and  from  spiritual 
pollution. 

"IV.  To  baptize,  as  the  Israelites  were  into  Moses 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  Occ.  i  Corinthians  x.  2; 
where  probably  the  true  reading  is  ebaptisthesen,  as  almost 
all  the  ancient  and  some  of  the  later  MSS.  read,  .  .  . 
'They  were  baptized  [not  "unto,"  as  our  English  version 
has  it,  but]  into  Moses' — i.  e.,  into  that  covenant,  and 
into  obedience  to  those  laws,  which  Moses  delivered  to 
them  from  God. 

"V.  In  a  figurative  sense,  to  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  It  denotes  the  miraculous  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  the  apostles  and  other  believers,  as  well  on 
account  of  the  abundance  of  His  gifts  (for  anciently 
the  water  was  copiously  poured  on  those  who  were  bap- 
tized, or  they  themselves  were  plunged  therein)  as  of  the 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        59 

virtue  and  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  like  living 
water  refresheth,  washeth  away  pollutions,  cleanseth,  etc. 
(Stokius;  Matthew  iii.  11;  Mark  i.  8;  Luke  iii.  16;  John 
i.  33;  Acts  i.  5,  ix.  16;  I  Corinthians  xii.  13.)" 

19.  Pickering  thus  defines  haptidzo:  "To  dip,  im- 
merse, submerge,  plunge,  sink,  overwhelm;  to  steep,  to 
soak,  to  wet;  mid.,  to  wash  one's  self  or  bathe,  etc.  In 
New  Testament,  to  wash,  to  cleanse  by  washing,  to  per- 
form ablution;  as  in  Mark  vii.  4,  where  it  is  used  as 
equivalent  to  vuf/ovrai  (nipsoontai)  in  verse  3,  and  as 
opposed  to  avLTTTos  (aniptos),  unwashed,  inverse  2;  to 
baptize,  or  perform  the  rite  of  baptism." 

Now  note  that  this  standard  Greek  lexicon  tells  us 
that  in  the  New  Testament  it  means  "to  wash,  to  cleanse 
by  washing,  to  perform  ablutions" ;  and  that  it  is  "equiv- 
alent to  nipto"  in  Mark  vii.  3.  We  know  nipto  means  to 
wash  the  hands  in  Mark  vii.  3,  by  pouring  the  water  upon 
them;  which  was  the  uniform  custom  of  the  washing  of 
hands,  as  we  shall  see  later  on.  If  haptidzo  in  Mark  vii.  4 
is  equivalent  to  nipto  in  Mark  vii.  3,  then  haptidzo  means 
"to  POUR  UPON."  So,  then,  this  standard  lexicon  gives 
us  the  New  Testament  meaning  of  haptidzo — "to  wash" 
by  POURING  water  on  the  subject,  and  not  by  plunging 
the  subject  into  it. 

20.  Groves:  "To  dip,  immerse,  immerge,  plunge; 
to  wash,  cleanse,  purify;  to  baptize,  etc."  He  thus  de- 
fines haptisma:  "Washing,  ablution;  purification;  bap- 
tism; the  Christian  doctrine;  depth  of  affliction  or  dis- 
tress." 

21.  Edward  Robinson  defines  haptidzo  "to  sub- 
merse, sink,"  and  then  he  quotes  from  Polybius  and 
Diodorus  Siculus,  both  later  Greek  writers,  to  confirm 
this  classical  meaning,  and  then  says:     "In  New  Tes- 


6o         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

lament  translation,   (i)   to  wash,  to  perform  ablution, 
cleanse.     (Mark  7 : 4.) " 

22.  Prof.  W.  J.  HiCKiE,  whose  lexicon  is  bound  with 
Wescott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testament,  thus  giving  it  the 
endorsement  of  these  great  scholars  and  critics,  thus  de- 
fines this  word:  "Baptidzo:  To  wash,  cleanse,  to  bap- 
tize (Mark  i.  5;  John  i.  25,  28);  pass.,  to  wash  (Luke 
xi.  38);  mid.,  to  receive  baptism  (Acts  xxi.  16).  Bap- 
tisma:  To  baptize  (Matthew  iii.  7,  xxi.  25;  Bphesians 
iv.  5).  Baptismos:  A  washing  (Mark  vii.  4;  Hebrews 
vi.  2,  ix.  10)."  This  is  one  of  the  very  latest  and  best 
lexicons  of  the  New  Testament. 

23.  LiDDELL  and  ScoTT:  ''Baptidzo:  To  dip  re- 
peatedly, dip  under;  mid.,  to  bathe,  hence  to  steep,  wet; 
metaph.,  soaked  in  wine.  To  pour  upon,  drench,  over  head 
and  ears  in  debt,  a  boy  overwhelmed  with  questions. 
II.  To  dip  a  vessel  and  draw  water.  III.  To  baptize 
(New  Testament)." 

We  have  quoted  from  Liddell  and  Scott's  first  edi- 
tion. We  know  that  in  their  later  editions  they  have 
taken  out  "to  wet"  and  "to  pour  upon";  we  know  also 
that  immersionist  writers  and  controversalists  have  taken 
advantage  of  this  fact  to  make  the  ignorant  and  unin- 
formed believe  that,  as  they  have  affirmed,  the  learning  of 
the  world  compelled  Prof.  Drisler,  the  American  editor  of 
Liddell  and  Scott,  to  take  out  "to  pour  upon."  Let  us 
examine  this  charge  for  a  little  while,  and  see  if  it  is  true : 

I.  Liddell  and  Scott  claim,  and  Prof.  Drisler,  their 
American  editor,  claims  for  them,  that  their  lexicon  is 
based  upon  Passow's  great  Greek-German  Lexicon,  and 
that  it  is  largely  an  English  translation  of  that  great 
work.  The  Preface  to  the  American  edition  begins  thus : 
"It  is  with  feelings  of  satisfaction  that  the  editor  is  at 
length  able  to  present  Messrs.  Liddell  and  Scott's  en- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        6i 

larged  translation  of  Passow's  Greek-German  Lexicon  to 
the  American  public."  On  page  ix.,  in  his  Preface,  the 
American  editor  says:  "The  most  numerous  additions, 
however,  to  this  part  of  the  Lexicon  have,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  been  drawn  from  other  lexicons.  Especially 
would  the  editor  make  the  fullest  acknowledgment  of  his 
indebtedness  to  the  Paris  edition  of  Stephen's  Thesaurus, 
Pape's  Greek-German  Lexicon,  Rost  and  Palm's  new 
edition  of  Passow,"  etc.,  etc.  In  the  Author's  Preface, 
page  xviii.,  they  state:  "In  the  title-page,  our  work  is 
said  to  be  based  on  the  German  work  of  Francis  Passow. 
We  cannot  too  fully  express  our  obligations  to  this  ex- 
cellent book,  without  which  ours  never  would  have 
been  attempted." 

These  extracts  are  sufficient  to  show  that  Liddell 
and  Scott's  Lexicon  is  based  on  Passow's  great  Greek- 
German  Lexicon.  In  their  first  edition  they  do  not  give 
fully  Passow's  definition;  but  they  do  define  it,  "to  WKT, 
to  POUR  UPON."  They  do  not  give  his  definition,  ''gen- 
erally to  BESPRINKLE."  Why  did  they  in  their  subse- 
quent editions  omit  "to  WET,"  "to  pour  upon"?  Did 
Passow  omit  "to  sprinkle,"  "to  pour  upon,"  ''gen- 
erally to  BESPRINKLE  "  ?  Did  Rost  and  Palm,  in  their  new 
edition  of  Passow,  to  which  Liddell  and  Scott  acknowl- 
edge their  obligations,  omit  these  definitions?  Nay, 
verily.  Did  Schneider  omit  them?  Did  Pape  omit 
them?  Did  Gazes  and  Kouma,  the  great  modern  Greek 
lexicographers,  omit  "brecho,  to  sprinkle"?  No.  "The 
learning  of  the  world"  did  not  "compel"  any  of  these 
great  scholars  to  take  out  these  definitions ;  it  centered  its 
wrath  all  on  the  heads  of  Liddell  and  Scott  and  Prof. 
Drisler,  their  American  editor.  This  was  a  most  mar- 
velous exhibition  of  the  wrath  of  "the  learning  of  the 
world";  but  it  so  happens  that   "the  learning  of  the 


62         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

world"  is  on  the  other  side.  Some  other  reason  must  be 
sought  for  Liddell  and  Scott's  action  and  that  of  their 
American  editor  than  the  wrath  of  "the  learning  of  the 
world."  That  reason  is  not  hard  to  find.  With  the 
definition  "to  pour  upon"  in  Liddell  and  Scott's  Lex- 
icon the  publishers  could  not  sell  it  to  the  immersionists 
of  England  and  America.  This  cut  off  about  ten  millions 
of  English-speaking  customers;  this  was  no  small  loss  to 
both  authors  and  publishers.  In  Germany  there  are  no 
such  conditions,  and  consequently  there  is  no  such  com- 
mercial temptation  in  the  way  of  authors  or  publishers; 
and  there  we  get  the  fruits  of  the  ripest  scholarship 
without  commercial  considerations  getting  in  the  way. 
"The  learning  of  the  world"  demanded  that  these  defini- 
tions should  be  retained;  as  they  are  in  all  the  great 
German  lexicons,  where  no  commercial  considerations 
demand  their  expurgation.  Do  we  not  here  find  the 
answer  as  to  why  these  definitions  were  taken  out  of 
Liddell  and  Scott's  Lexicon?  Is  there  any  other  answer 
to  the  question?  If  "the  scholarship  of  the  world"  had 
compelled  Liddell  and  Scott  to  take  out  these  definitions, 
it  would  most  certainly  have  compelled  Schneider, 
Passow,  Rost  and  Palm,  and  Pape,  the  greatest  scholars 
and  lexicographers  in  the  world,  to  have  taken  them  out ; 
it  would  have  compelled  Gazes  and  Kouma,  the  greatest 
modern  Greek  lexicographers,  to  have  taken  them  out; 
but  it  did  not.  They  are  only  taken  out  of  Greek- 
English  lexicons  where  commercial  interests,  and  not 
scholarship,  demand  it.  Here  everything  is  regulated 
by  the  commercial  standard;  in  Germany  everything  of 
this  character  is  regulated  by  the  standard  of  scholarship. 
That  makes  the  difference.  The  reader  can  see  at  a 
glance  why  these  definitions  were  taken  out  of  Liddell 
and  Scott's  Lexicon. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        63 

Let  no  immersionist  ever  claim  again  that  "the 
learning  of  the  world"  compelled  Liddell  and  Scott  and 
their  American  editor  to  take  out  these  definitions  of 
haptidzo.  Carson  was  right;  all  the  lexicographers  are 
against  him.  Let  no  immersionist  ever  again  claim  that 
the  lexicons  are  on  their  side. 


/ 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  Testimony  of  Commentators,  Critics, 
and  schoi^ars. 

We  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  Dr. 
Carson's  statement,  that  all  the  lexicographers  are  against 
him  in  his  position,  "that  haptidzo  always  signifies  to  dip; 
never  expressing  anything  but  mode,"  is  true.  Let  us 
examine,  and  see  if  the  other  part  of  his  statement,  that 
the^commentators  are  all  against  him,  is  true  also. 

We  will  begin  with  that  prince  of  commentators  and 
linguists,  Dr.  Adam  CivARKE,  the  most  distinguished  and 
universally  learned  commentator  of  the  last  century.  On 
the  meaning  of  haptidzo,  in  his  comment  on  Matthew  iii. 
6,  he  says: 

"In  what  manner  baptism  was  originally  admin- 
istered has  been  deemed  a  subject  worthy  of  serious  dis- 
pute. Were  the  people  dipped  or  sprinkled?  for  it  is 
certain  that  Paino  (bapto)  and  PairTcio  {haptidzo)  mean 
both." 

Thus  deposes  that  prince  of  scholars  as  to  the 
meaning  of  this  word. 

2.  Dr.  Thomas  Scott  was  quite  a  learned  com- 
mentator.    In  his  comment  on  Matthew  iii.  6  he  says: 

"The  word  was  adopted  from  the  Greek  authors, 
and  a  sense  put  upon  it  by  the  inspired  writers,  according 
to  the  style  of  Scripture,  to  signify  the  use  of  water  in  the 
sacrament  of  baptism,  and  in  many  things  of  a  spiritual 
nature,  which  stand  related  to  it.  Some  indeed  contend 
zealously  that  baptism  always  signifies  immersion;  but 

64 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        65 

the  use  of  the  words  'baptize'  and  'baptism'  in  the  New 
Testament  cannot  accord  with  this  exclusive  interpre- 
tation." 

3.  Joseph  Benson  was  quite  a  learned  commen- 
tator.    In  his  comment  on  Matthew  iii.  6  he  says : 

"It  has  been  questioned  by  many,  whether  John 
baptized  these  immense  multitudes  by  dipping  them  in 
Jordan.  In  answer  to  which  it  has  been  observed,  that 
such  prodigious  numbers  could  hardly  be  baptized  by 
immersing  their  whole  bodies  under  water;  nor  can  we 
think  they  were  provided  with  change  of  raiment  for  it, 
which  was  scarcely  practicable  for  such  vast  multitudes. 
And  yet  they  could  not  be  immerged  naked  with  modesty, 
nor  in  their  wearing  apparel  with  safety.  It  has  been 
thought,  therefore,  that  they  stood  in  ranks  on  the  edge 
of  the  river,  and  that  John,  passing  along  before  them, 
cast  water  on  their  heads  or  faces;  by  which  means 
he  might  baptize  many  thousands  a  day.  This,  it  must 
be  confessed,  most  naturally  signified  Christ's  baptizing 
them  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,  which  John 
spoke  of  as  prefigured  by  his  baptizing  with  water;  and 
which  was  eminently  fulfilled  when  the  Holy  Ghost  sat 
upon  the  disciples,  in  the  appearance  of  tongues  or 
flames  of  fire." 

4.  John  Wesley  was  a  very  learned  man,  especially 
in  the  Greek  language.  He  was  one  of  the  very  best 
Greek  scholars  in  the  United  Kingdom  in  his  day.  In 
his  "Notes  on  the  New  Testament,"  on  Mark  vii.  4,  he 
says: 

"The  Greek  noun  baptisms  means  indifferently  either 
washing  or  sprinkling.  The  cups  and  pots  were  washed; 
the  beds  were  sprinkled." 

Again  he  says : 

"The  matter  of  this  sacrament  is  water,  which,  as  it 
has  a  natural  power  of  cleansing,  is  the  more  fit  for  this 


66         T^e  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

symbolical  use.  Baptism  is  performed  by  washing,  dip- 
ping, or  sprinkling  the  person  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  hereby  devoted  to  the  ever- 
blessed  Trinity.  I  say  by  washing,  sprinkling,  or  dipping ; 
because  it  is  not  determined  in  Scripture  in  which  of  these 
ways  it  shall  be  done,  neither  by  any  express  precept,  nor 
by  any  example  as  clearly  proves  it;  nor  by  THE  FORCE 

OR  MEANING  OF  THE  WORD  'BAPTISM.'  " 

Prof.  Moses  Stuart  was  a  very  learned  man.  In 
his  work  on  the  mode  of  baptism  he  makes  larger  conces- 
sions to  immersionists  than  any  other  writer  on  our  side 
of  the  question.  Indeed,  so  large  are  his  concessions, 
that  Dr.  J.  R.  Graves  republished  his  book  in  1856  as 
an  immersionist  document.  I  quote  from  Dr.  Graves' 
edition.  In  his  introduction  to  the  book.  Dr.  Graves 
remarks : 

"Professor  Stuart  was  in  his  day  the  brightest  lu- 
minary in  the  constellation  of  Pedobaptist  scholars.  He 
was  the  bright  particular  star  of  Andover,  and  shed  over 
that  seminary  a  halo  of  intellectual  light.  The  charm  of 
his  name,  his  reputation  for  profound  and  varied  schol- 
arship, on  both  sides  of  the  water,  attracted  students 
from  the  remotest  sections  of  our  Union,  and  for  nearly 
half  a  century  with  his  students,  as  with  Pedobaptists, 
appeals  to  his  authority  have  been  considered  ultimate." 

Let  us  see  what  is  the  conclusion  this  great  scholar, 
so  highly  endorsed  by  Dr.  Graves,  reached  as  to  the 
meaning  of  bapto  and  haptidzo  and  in  regard  to  the  mode 
of  baptism.     After  years  of  patient  investigation,  he  says : 

"I  have  now  examined  all  those  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  in  which  the  circumstances  related  or  implied 
would  seem  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  question  before  us — 
viz.,  Whether  the  mode  of  baptism  is  determined  by  the 
sacred  writers?    I  am  unabi^E  to  find  anything  which 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         67 

APPEARS  TO  SETTLE  THIS  QUESTION.  I  find  none,  I  am 
quite  ready  to  concede,  which  seem  absolutely  to  de- 
termine that  immersion  was  not  practiced.  But  are 
there  not  some,  which  have  been  cited  above,  that  seem 
to  render  it  improbable  that  immersion  was  always  prac- 
ticed, to  say  the  least?  I  can  only  say  that  such  is  my 
persuasion.  The  reader  has  the  evidence  before  him,  and 
can  judge  for  himself.  He  will  indulge  me,  I  hope,  in  the 
same  liberty.  I  do  consider  it  as  quite  plain,  that  none  of 
the  circumstantial  evidence  thus  far  proves  immersion  to 
have  been  exclusively  the  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  or 
even  that  of  John.  Indeed,  I  consider  this  point  so  far 
made  out  that  I  can  hardly  suppress  the  conviction,  that 
if  anyone  maintains  the  contrary,  it  must  be  either  be- 
cause he  is  unable  rightly  to  ESTIMATE  THE  nature  or 
POWER  OF  THE  Greek  language,  or  because  he  is  in- 
fluenced in  some  measure  by  party  feeling;  or  else  be- 
cause he  has  looked  at  the  subject  in  only  a  partial 
manner,  without  examining  it  fully  and  thoroughly." 
(Stuart  on  "Christian  Baptism,"  pp.  115-116.) 

This  is  pretty  strong  language,  coming  from  a  book 
published  as  an  immersionist  document.  This  great  au- 
thority, so  highly  endorsed  by  Dr.  Graves,  instead  of 
holding  that  baptidzo  always  means  to  dip  or  immerse, 
declares  that  those  who  hold  that  view  are  "unable 
rightly  to  estimate  THE  nature  or  power  of  the  Greek 
language."     This  will  do  for  Dr.  Graves'  star  witness. 

Dr.  John  Owen,  who  is  admitted  to  have  been  one 
of  the  ripest  scholars  of  his  day,  says : 

"Baptism  signifies  to  wash,  as  instances  out  of  all 
authors  may  be  given,  as  Suidas,  Hesychius,  Julius 
Pollux,  Phavorinus,  and  Eustachius.  It  is  first  used  in 
Scripture  in  Mark  i.  5  and  John  i.  33,  and  to  the  same 
purpose  in  Acts  i.  5.     In  every  place  it  either  signifies  to 


68         Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

POUR,  or  the  expression  is  equivalent.  *I  baptize  you 
with  water,  but  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost';  which  is  the  accomplishment  of  that  promise, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  be  poured  on  them.  Again, 
no  one  place  can  be  given  in  the  Scriptures  wherein  hap- 
tizo  doth  necessarily  signify  either  to  dip  or  plunge. 
Again,  in  this  sense,  as  it  expresseth  baptism,  it  denotes 
to  wash  only,  for  so  it  is  explained,  Titus  ii.  5,  etc.  Again, 
wherefore  in  this  sense,  as  the  word  is  applied  unto  the 
ordinance,  the  sense  of  dipping  is  utterly  excluded.' 
(Owen's  Works,  Vol.  XXI.,  p.  557;  "Campbell  and  Rice 
Debate,"  p.  157.) 

Dean  Alford  was  certainly  a  very  learned  man.  In 
his  Greek  Testament  with  Notes,  on  Mark  vii.  4,  he 
remarks : 

"These  haptismoi,  as  applied  to  klinon  [meaning 
probably  here  couches  {triclinia)  used  at  meals],  were 
certainly  not  immersions,  but  sprinklings  or  affusions 
of  water." 

Dr.  Timothy  D wight,  for  twenty- two  years  pres- 
ident of  Yale  College,  stands  in  the  front  rank  of  Amer- 
ican scholars.  Speaking  of  the  meaning  of  hapto  and 
baptidzo,  he  says: 

"i.  That  the  body  of  learned  critics  and  lexicog- 
raphers declare  that  the  original  meaning  of  both  these 
words  is  to  tinge,  stain,  dye,  or  color;  and  that  when  it 
means  immersion,  it  is  only  in  a  secondary  and  occasional 
sense ;  derived  from  the  fact  that  such  things  as  are  dyed, 
stained,  or  colored  are  often  immersed  for  this  end. 
This  interpretation  of  the  words,  also,  they  support  by 
such  a  series  of  quotations  as  seem  unanswerably  to 
evince  that  this  was  the  original,  classical  meaning  of 
these  words. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        69 

"2.  I  have  examined  almost  one  hundred  instan- 
ces, in  which  the  word  (^airri^oi  (baptidzo)  and  its  deriva- 
tives are  used  in  the  New  Testament,  and  four  in  the 
Septuagint;  these,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  being  all 
the  instances  contained  in  both.  By  this  examination 
it  is  to  my  apprehension  evident  that  the  following  things 
are  true : 

"That  the  primary  meaning  of  these  terms  is  cleans- 
ing; the  effect,  not  the  mode  of  washing. 

"That  the  mode  is  usually  referred  to  incidentally 
whenever  these  words  are  mentioned;  and  that  this  is 
always  the  case  wherever  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is 
mentioned,  and  a  reference  is  made,  at  the  same  time, 
to  the  mode  of  administration. 

"That  these  words,  although  often  capable  of  de- 
noting any  mode  of  washing,  whether  by  affusion,  sprink- 
ling, or  immersion  (since  cleansing  was  familiarly  accom- 
plished by  the  Jews  in  all  these  ways),  yet,  in  many  in- 
stances, cannot  without  obvious  impropriety  be  made  to 
signify  immersion;  and  in  others  cannot  signify  it  at  all." 
(Dwight's  "Theology,"  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  345-346.) 

Dr.  S.  T.  Bloomfield  was  a  very  learned  man.  In 
his  Greek  Testament  with  Notes,  in  two  volumes,  in  his 
note  on  Mark  vii.  4,  he  says: 

"This  is  best  explained,  unless  they  wash  their 
bodies  (in  opposition  to  the  washing  of  their  hands  be- 
fore mentioned) ;  in  which,  however,  is  not  implied  im- 
mersion, which  was  never  used,  except  when  some  actual, 
and  not  possible,  pollution  had  occurred." 

His  testimony  is  the  more  valuable  from  the  fact 
that  he  held  that  immersion  was  the  practice  in  the 
apostolic  age,  as  we  learn  from  his  note  on  Romans  vi.  1-6. 
But  as  a  scholar  he  was  compelled  to  state  that  baptidzo 
does  not  necessarily  mean  to  immerse. 


yo         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

The  celebrated  James  Arminius,  D.D.,  professor  of 
divinity  in  the  University  of  Leyden,  and  founder  of  the 
Arminian  system  of  theology,  was  a  very  learned  man. 
In  speaking  of  baptism,  he  says : 

''The  form  of  external  baptism  is  that  ordained  ad- 
ministration, according  to  the  institution  of  God,  which 
consists  of  two  things:     (i)  That  he  who  is  baptized  BE 

SPRINKLED  WITH  THIS  WATER.  (2)  That  this  SPRINK- 
LING be  made  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Analogous  to  this  is  the  inward 
sprinkling  and  communication  both  of  the  blood  and 
spirit  of  Christ,  which  is  done  by  Christ  alone,  and  which 
may  be  called  the  internal  form  of  inward  baptism." 
(Writings  of  Arminius,  Vol.  II.,  p.  160.) 

This  great  scholar  here  tells  us  that  haptidzo  means 
to  SPRINKLE,  and  that  the  right  form  of  water  baptism 
"is  the  SPRINKLING  of  Water." 

McClintock  and  Strong's  Biblical  and  Theological 
Cyclopedia,  in  twelve  volumes,  the  standard  cyclopedia 
of  its  character  in  the  Enghsh  language,  a  work  of  vast 
research  and  learning,  says: 

"i.  As  to  the  meaning  of  ySaTrTtlw  {haptidzo) ,  it  is 
allowed  on  all  hands,  that  it  is  (at  least  sometimes)  ap- 
plied to  acts  involving  the  process  of  immersion,  both  by 
profane  and  sacred  writers  (see  above).  But  the  best 
lexicographers  agree  that  this  is  not  its  exclusive  meaning, 
and  none  but  a  daring  controversialist  would  assert  that 

it  is As   the   word   f^aTrri^oi   {haptidzo)  is 

used  to  express  the  various  ablutions  of  the  Jews,  such  as 
sprinkling,  pouring,  etc.  (Hebrews  ix.  10),  for  the  custom 
of  washing  before  meals,  and  the  washing  of  household 
furniture,  pots,  etc.,  it  is  evident  from  hence  that  it  does 
not  express  the  manner  of  doing  a  thing,  whether  by  im- 
mersion or  affusion,  but  only  the  thing  done — that  is, 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         71 

washing,  or  the  application  of  water  in  some  form  or 
other."     (Vol.  I.,  p.  647.) 

We  might  go  on  with  such  quotations,  and  fill  a 
volume  with  the  testimonies  of  the  greatest  scholars  who 
have  ever  lived,  as  to  the  meaning  of  baptidzo,  but  these 
are  sufficient,  especially  as  the  great  and  honest  Dr. 
Carson  admits  they  are  all  against  him. 

One  of  the  common  tricks  of  controversial  writers 
and  debaters  on  the  side  of  immersion  is  to  pile  up  a  long 
list  of  names,  mostly  of  persons  unknown,  to  prove  that 
baptidzo  always  means  to  immerse.  This  is  done  simply 
for  effect  on  ignorant  minds.  It  is  not  uncommon  to  find 
the  names  of  John  Wesley,  Adam  Clarke,  Moses  Stuart, 
etc.,  among  the  great  scholars  who  are  claimed  by  im- 
mersionists  to  hold  that  baptidzo  always  means  dip,  or 
immerse,  and  hence  we  have  given  the  testimony  of  these 
great  scholars,  in  their  own  language,  to  show  the  utter 
falsehood  of  this  claim.  We  have  quoted  only  from 
scholars  of  the  first  class,  men  who  are  universally  known 
and  admitted  to  be  such.  The  testimony  of  one  such  man 
outweighs  a  thousand  names  of  men  unknown.  When 
we  come  to  examine  the  use  the  early  Greek  and  Latin 
fathers  made  of  this  word,  we  will  see  that  they  agree 
exactly  with  these  great  modern  scholars,  or,  rather,  that 
these  great  modern  scholars  agree  with  them,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  baptidzo. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

TuH  Classical  Use  oi?  "Baptidzo." 

Our  immersionist  friends,  conscious  of  the  fact  that 
the  lexicons,  commentators,  and  critics  are  all  against 
their  position,  appeal  from  these  authorities  to  the  use  of 
the  word  in  Greek  writers.     Dr.  Carson  says : 

"Use  is  the  sole  arbiter  of  language;  and 
whatever  is  agreeable  to  this  authority  stands 
BEYOND  IMPEACHMENT."  (Carsou  on  "Baptism,"  p.  46.) 
The  capitals  are  his. 

Dr.  Carson  is  correct  in  this;  but  this  is  precisely 
what  the  lexicons  are  based  upon.     The  lexicographer 
examines  the  passages  in  which  a  word  occurs  in  reputable 
writers  of  a  language,  and  determines  its  meaning  ac- 
cordingly.    The  man  who,  like  Dr.  Carson,  appeals  from 
the  authority  of  the  lexicons,  simply  sets  up  his  judgment 
against  the  judgment  of  the  lexicographers,   as  to  the 
meaning  of  fa  word  as  fixed  and  determined  by  its  use; 
with  this  difference,  the  chances  are  largely  in  favor  of 
the  lexicographer,  as  he  has  a  much  larger  acquainta^ice 
with  the  use  of  the  word,  and  is  unfettered  by  any  the- 
ological   bias.     But,    strange    to    say,  our  immersionist 
friends  universally  appeal  to  classical  use,   when  they 
know  that  the  New  Testament  was  not  written  in  classic 
Greek;  and    that    therefore    classic    use    can    determine 
nothing  as  to  the  meaning  of  words  used  in  it.     Dr. 
Carson  admits  that  all  living  languages  are  continually 
changing  the  use  of  their  words,  and  he  cites  bapto  and 
candlestick  as  examples.     He  says: 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        73 

**  Nothing  in  the  history  of  words  is  more  common 
than  to  enlarge  or  diminish  their  signification.  Ideas 
not  originally  included  in  them  are  often  affixed  to  some 
words,  while  others  drop  ideas  originally  asserted  in  their 
application.  In  this  way  bapto,  from  signifying  mere 
mode,  came  to  be  applied  to  a  certain  operation  usually 
performed  in  that  mode.  From  signifying  to  dip,  it 
came  to  signify  to  dye  by  dipping,  because  this  was  the 
way  in  which  things  were  usually  dyed.  And  afterwards, 
from  dyeing  by  dipping,  it  came  to  denote  dyeing  in  any 
manner.  A  like  process  might  be  shown  in  the  history 
of  a  thousand  words.  Candlestick  originally  denoted  a 
stick  to  hold  a  candle,  but  now  the  utensil  employed  to 
hold  a  candle  is  called  a  candlestick  even  when  it  is  of 
gold."     (Ibid.,  p.  44.) 

Again,  he  says : 

"Bapto  signifies  to  dye  by  sprinkling,  as  properly  as 
by  dipping,  though  originally  it  was  confined  to  the 
latter."     (Ibid.,  p.  46.) 

Now  if  bapto  could  change  its  meaning  so  radically  by 
use,  could  not  baptidzo  do  the  same,  even  if  it  did  orig- 
inally mean  to  dip,  as  our  immersionist  friends  contend 
it  did?  Is  there  any  law  of  language  to  forbid  baptidzo 
from  J  folio  wing  the  example  of  its  parent  bapto  in  this 
respect?  But  we  have  shown,  we  think  conclusively, 
in  Chapter  II.,  that  the  original,  primary,  and  proper 
meaning  of  both  these  words  was  to  dye,  while  as  sec- 
ondary meanings  they  meant  to  dip,  to  pour  upon,  to 
sprinkle,  etc.,  because  dyeing  may  be  done  by  any  of 
these  ways. 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  in  his  "Philosophy  of  Rhet- 
oric," shows  clearly  that  use  alone  can  determine  the  mean- 
ing of  words  in  any  given  period  of  the  history  of  a  lan- 
guage, or  in  any  country  or  province.     He  says: 
— 6 — 


74         Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"Only  let  us  rest  in  these  fixed  principles,  that  use  or 
custom  of  speaking  is  the  sole  original  standard  of  con- 
versation as  far  as  regards  the  expression,  and  the  custom 
of  writing  the  sole  standard  of  style ;  that  the  latter  com- 
prehends the  former,  and  something  more;  that  to  the 
tribunal  of  use  as  the  supreme  authority,  and  conse- 
quently, in  every  grammatical  controversy,  the  last  re- 
sort, we  are  entitled  to  appeal  from  the  laws  and  the 
decisions  of  grammarians;  and  that  this  order  of  sub- 
ordination ought  never,  on  any  account,  to  be  reversed." 
('The  Philosophy  of  Rhetoric,"  p.  164.) 

Again,  he  says: 

"It  is  never  from  an  attention  to  etymology,  which 
would  frequently  mislead  us,  but  from  custom,  the  only 
infallible  guide  in  this  matter,  that  the  meaning  of  words 
in  present  use  must  be  learned.  And,  indeed,  if  the  want  in 
question  were  material,  it  would  equally  affect  all  those 
words,  no  inconsiderable  part  of  our  language,  whose 
descent  is  doubtful  or  unknown."     {Ibid.,  p.  191.) 

Again,  he  says: 

* '  But  there  will  naturally  arise  here  another  question : 
Is  not  use,  even  good  and  national,  in  the  same  country, 
different  in  different  periods?  And  if  so,  to  the  usage  of 
what  period  shall  we  attach  ourselves  as  the  proper  rule? 
If  you  say  the  present,  as  it  may  be  reasonably  expected 
that  you  will,  the  difficulty  is  not  entirely  removed.  In 
what  signification  must  we  understand  the  word  present? 
How  far  may  we  safely  range  in  quest  of  authorities?  or 
at  what  distance  backward  from  this  moment  are  authors 
still  to  be  accounted  as  possessing  a  legislative  voice  in 
language?  This,  I  own,  it  is  difficult  to  give  an  answer 
with  all  the  precision  that  might  be  desired.  Yet  it  is 
certain  that,  when  we  are  in  search  of  precedents  for  any 
word  or  idiom,  there  are  certain^mounds  which  we  cannot 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        75 

overleap  with  safety.  For  instance,  the  authority  of 
Hooker  or  Raleigh,  however  great  their  merit  and  their 
fame  be,  will  not  now  be  admitted  in  support  of  a  term 
or  expression  not  to  be  found  in  any  good  writer  of  a  later 
date.  .  .  .  It  is  not  by  ancient,  but  by  present  use, 
that  our  style  must  be  regulated.  And  that  use  can 
never  be  denominated  present  which  hath  been  laid  aside 
time  immemorial,  or,  which  amounts  to  the  same  thing, 
falls  not  within  the  knowledge  or  remembrance  of  any 
now  living.  .  .  .  But  if  present  use  is  to  be  re- 
nounced for  ancient,  it  will  be  necessary  to  determine  at 
what  precise  period  antiquity  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  rule. 
One  inclines  to  remove  the  standard  to  the  distance  of  a 
century  and  a  half;  another  may,  with  as  good  reason, 
fix  it  three  centuries  backward,  and  another  six.  And  if 
the  language  of  any  of  these  periods  is  to  be  judged  by 
the  use  of  any  other,  it  will  be  found,  no  doubt,  entirely 
barbarous.  To  me  it  is  so  evident  that  either  the  present 
use  must  be  the  standard  of  the  present  language,  or  that 
language  admits  of  no  standard  whatever,  that  I  cannot 
conceive  a  clearer  or  more  indisputable  principle  from 
which  to  bring  an  argument.  ...  If  you  desert  the 
present  use,  and  by  your  example  at  least  establish  it  as  a 
maxim,  that  every  critic  may  revive  at  pleasure  old- 
fashioned  terms,  inflections,  and  combinations,  and  make 
such  alterations  on  words  as  will  bring  them  nearer  to 
what  he  supposeth  to  be  etymon,  there  can  be  nothing 
fixed  or  stable  on  the  subject.  Possibly  you  prefer  the 
usage  that  prevailed  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth; 
another  may,  with  as  good  reason,  have  a  partiality  for 
that  which  subsisted  in  the  days  of  Chaucer.  And  with 
regard  to  etymology,  about  which  grammarians  make  so 
much  useless  bustle,  if  everyone  hath  a  privilege  of  al- 
tering words  according  to  his  own  opinion  of  their  origin, 


76         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

the  opinions  of  the  learned  being  on  this  subject  so 
various,  nothing  but  a  general  chaos  can  ensue.  .  . 
Thus  I  have  attempted  to  explain  what  that  use  is  which 
is  the  sole  mistress  of  language,  and  to  ascertain  the  pre- 
cise import  and  extent  of  these  her  essential  attributes, 
R^PUTABLK,  NATIONAL,  and  PRESENT,  and  to  give  the 
directions  proper  to  be  observed  in  searching  for  the  laws 
of  this  empress.  In  truth,  grammar  and  criticism  are 
but  her  ministers ;  and  though,  like  other  ministers,  they 
would  impose  sometimes  the  dictates  of  their  humor  upon 
the  people  as  the  commands  of  their  sovereign,  they  are 
not  so  often  successful  in  such  attempts  as  to  encourage 
the  frequent  repetition  of  them."  {Ibid.,  pp.  170,  171, 
172,  173,  174.) 

We  wish  to  call  particular  attention  to  the  three 
points  which  Dr.  Campbell  makes  prominent  in  the  usE 
which  fixes  the  meaning  of  words:  (i)  reputable, 
(2)  NATIONAL,  (3)  PRESENT.  REPUTABLE  use  is  the  use 
of  reputable  writers  of  a  language.  National  use  is  the 
use,  not  of  a  province,  or  district,  but  of  the  nation.  In 
case  a  language  becomes  by  conquest  the  general  language 
of  law  and  literature  and  the  medium  of  communication 
among  the  people,  as  the  Greek  language  did  after  the 
conquest  of  Alexander,  the  use  of  any  one  nation  must  de- 
termine the  meaning  of  the  words  used  by  that  nation. 
That  is  national  use.  Hence,  to  determine  the  meaning 
of  any  Greek  word  used  among  the  Jews,  not  its  use  by 
classical  writers,  but  its  Jewish  use,  must  be  sought. 
Present  use  must  be  confined  to  present  time.  Dr. 
Campbell  admits  that  this  is  a  difficult  matter  to  de- 
termine. But  present  use  among  the  Jews  may  reason- 
ably go  back  to  the  introduction  of  the  Greek  language 
into  Palestine  after  the  conquest  of  Alexander.  This  in- 
cludes the  time  of  the  translation  of  the  Septuagint  and 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        77 

the  writing  of  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha,  down  to  the 
time  of  Christ  and  the  apostles.  In  ascertaining  the 
meaning  of  haptidzo  by  the  use  of  the  word  among  the 
Jews  during  this  time  and  among  the  early  Christians  for 
the  first  three  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era,  we  cer- 
tainly have  the  only  authoritative  use  of  the  word  we 
can  have  to  determine  its  meaning  in  the  Bible.  This 
gives  Dr.  Campbell's  three  rules  governing  use  in  fixing 
the  meaning  of  words:    reputable,  national,  and  present. 

Dr.  HiNTON,  an  eminent  Baptist  writer,  in  his 
"History  of  Baptism,"  says: 

"It  is  manifest  that  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  any 
given  case  is  not  to  be  determined  by  its  original  sense, 
but  by  its  actual  or  ordinary  meaning  in  the  language  in 
which  the  author  wrote,  and  at  the  time  of  his  writing; 
unless  the  circumstances  in  which  the  word  occurs  re- 
quire a  figurative  or  technical  signification  (which  may 
also  include  the  ordinary)  to  be  attached.  ...  It 
does  not  appear  to  me,  however,  in  the  slightest  degree 
important  to  the  argument  that  no  case  of  variation  of 
meaning  shall  be  found.  What  word  can  be  more 
specific  than  the  Saxon  word  dip9  And  yet  we  have  the 
dip  of  the  magnetic  needle,  which  certainly  has  nothing 
to  do  with  plunging.  Could  several  instances  of  exten- 
sion or  dilution  of  meaning  be  found  among  the  profane 
Greek  writers,  it  would  not  affect  the  question,  which  is, 
In  what  sense  did  ChRisT  and  His  apostlks  usk  the 

TERM  'bAPTIDZO,'  AND  WHAT  DID  THEY  DESIGN  THE  DIS- 
CIPLES THEN  AND  NOW  TO  UNDERSTAND   BY  IT?"       (Hiu- 

ton's  "History  of  Baptism,"  pp.  18-23.) 

A  clearer  or  more  concise  statement  of  the  case,  it 
seems  to  me,  could  not  be  made  than  is  this  statement 
by  this  eminent  Baptist  writer.  All  three  of  the  writers 
above  quoted  to  prove  our  position  as  to  the  meaning  of 


78         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

words  to  be  determined  by  use,  national  and  present y 
were  strong  immersionists.  Dr.  George  Campbell  was  a 
Presbyterian ;  but  tie  believed  strongly  in  immersion.  It 
is  strange  indeed,  after  such  strong  and  sane  statements 
by  these  eminent  immersionist  scholars,  that  they  would 
immediately  turn  around  and  violate  the  principles  they 
here  have  so  clearly  laid  down,  and,  passing  over  the  use 
of  the  word  baptidzo  among  the  Jews  and  early  Christians 
(which  Dr.  Hinton  here  declares  is  the  real  question  in 
debate),  appeal  to  the  classic  Greek  writers  hundreds  of 
miles  away,  and  some  of  them  hundreds  of  years  before 
Christ.  The  only  reason  I  can  conceive  for  them  pur- 
suing this  course  is  the  consciousness  that  if  they  confine 
themselves  to  this  use  of  the  word  to  determine  its 
meaning,  their  cause  is  lost.  Is  this  honest?  I  do  not 
call  in  question  the  honesty  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Carson 
and  my  Baptist  brethren  in  general,  but  this  only  shows 
to  what  extent  prejudice  can  blind  the  minds  of  good 
men,  when  they  are  supporting  a  theory  which  cannot  be 
maintained  by  facts.  We  will  see  some  very  striking 
illustrations  of  this  as  we  proceed  in  this  discussion. 

But  classical  use  utterly  fails  to  sustain  the  position 
of  immersionists.  We  will  take  up,  first,  some  of  the  ex- 
amples cited  by  Carson  to  prove  that  baptidzo  "always 
signifies  to  dip;  never  expressing  anything  but  mode." 
His  first  example  is  taken  from  Polybius,  where  he  is 
speaking  of  soldiers  "passing  through  the  water,  im- 
mersed up  to  the  breast."  On  this  he  remarks:  "Here 
surely  the  word  cannot  mean  pouring  or  sprinkling." 
And  as  surely  it  cannot  mean  the  "mode"  of  baptism, 
as  practiced  by  immersionists.  Where  is  the  act  of  dip 
in  this  case?  Soldiers  walking  in  the  water  until  it 
reaches  the  waist  is  not  a  dipping.  This  example  fails  to 
support  Carson's  "mode";  the  "dip"  is  wanting;  and  in 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         79 

its  place  we  have  "wet  up  to  the  waist,"  not  by  "dip- 
ping," but  by  walking  into  the  water.  The  cause  of  im- 
mersion must  be  hard  pressed  when  it  resorts  to  such  an 
example  as  this  to  prove  its  cause. 

His  second  example  is  taken  from  Plutarch.  He 
says:  "Plutarch,  speaking  of  a  Roman  general,  dying  of 
his  wounds,  dipped  (baptized)  his  hand  in  blood  and  wrote 
the  inscription  for  a  trophy."  On  this  he  remarks: 
"Here  the  mode  of  the  action  cannot  be  questioned. 
The  instrument  of  writing  is  dipped  (baptized)  in  the 
coloring  fluid."  But  there  is  no  immersion  of  the  hand  in 
this  case ;  the  end  of  the  index  finger  is  dipped  in  the  blood, 
so  as  to  moisten  it  for  the  purpose  of  writing,  and  this 
is  called  ' '  the  baptism ' '  of  the  hand.  If  the  hand  had  been 
immersed  or  plunged  in  the  blood,  he  could  not  have 
written  at  all,  for  the  blood  dripping  from  the  hand  on  the 
material  used  to  write  upon  would  have  blurred  it  so  the 
writing  would  not  have  been  legible.  It  is  strange  that  so 
astute  a  writer  as  Dr.  Carson  was  should  produce  such  an 
example  as  this  to  prove  that  baptidzo  "always  signifies 
to  dip;  never  expressing  anything  but  mode,"  when  dip  is 
entirely  out  of  the  question.  Dr.  Carson  gives  a  number 
of  other  examples  where  immersion  is  out  of  the  question. 
Could  there  be  a  clearer  example  furnished  to  prove  that 
*^e  moistening  of  a  small  part  of  the  object  baptized  is 
called  the  baptism  of  the  whole  object?  This  example  is 
decisive  against  the  position  of  Dr.  Carson,  and  proves 
that  baptidzo  sometimes  means  in  classic  Greek  to  moisten 
only  a  small  part  of  the  object  said  to  be  baptized,  and 
that  this  moistening  is  the  baptism  of  the  whole  object. 

In  another  of  his  examples  he  says : 

"Two  Greek  critics  are  quoted  by  Dr.  Gale  as  ap- 
plying the  word  in  exhibiting  the  beauty  of  Homer's  rep- 
resentation of  the  death  of  one  of  his  heroes.     'He  struck 


8o         Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

him  across  the  neck  with  his  heavy  sword,  and  the  whole 
sword  became  warm  with  blood.'  On  this  Pseudo  Did- 
ymus  says  that  the  sword  is  represented  as  dipped  in 
blood.  And  Dionysius  says:  'In  that  phrase  Homer 
expresses  himself  with  the  greatest  energy,  signifying  that 
the  sword  was  so  dipped  in  blood  that  it  was  even  heated 
by  it.'  " 

In  this  example  Dr.  Carson  renders  baptisthentes 
"dipped,"  yet  there  is  no  dipping  of  the  sword  in  blood; 
but  there  is  a  baptism  of  the  sword  with  blood.  The 
sword  was  not  said  to  have  been  immersed  in  the  neck  of 
the  hero;  but  it  was  said  to  have  been  baptized  with  the 
blood  of  the  hero.  How  was  this  baptism  performed? 
The  blood  gushing  out  upon  the  sword  is  represented  as 
so  baptizing  it,  that  it  becomes  heated  by  it.  This  is  a 
clear  case  of  baptism  by  flowing  forth,  or  falling  upon,  as 
could  be  furnished  in  human  language;  and  yet  it  is 
paraded  by  both  Carson  and  Conant  as  an  example  that 
baptidzo  always  means  to  immerse!  It  does  not  matter 
about  the  quantity  of  blood  that  gushed  upon  the  sword 
from  the  wound  inflicted;  it  is  the  mode  that  is  in  ques- 
tion, and  that  was  unquestionably  not  immersion. 

Another  one  of  Dr.  Carson's  examples  to  prove  that 
baptidzo  always  mean  to  dip  or  immerse  in  classic  usages 
is  taken  from  Hippocrates,  and  is  the  celebrated  case  of 
the  baptism  of  the  blister-plaster.     He  says : 

"Hippocrates  uses  the  word  sometimes,  and  always 
in  the  sense  for  which  I  contend.  We  have  seen  that  he 
uses  bapto  very  often;  I  have  not  found  baptidzo  more 
than  four  times.  This  circumstance  sufficiently  proves 
that  though  the  words  are  so  nearly  related,  they  are  not 
perfectly  identical  in  signification.  The  first  occurrence 
of  it  is  in  page  254:  'Dip  (baptize)  it  again  in  breast- 
milk    and    Egyptian   ointment.'     He    is   speaking   of   a 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         8i 

blister,  which  was  first  to  be  dipped  (bapted)  in  the  oil  of 
roses,  and  if,  when  thus  applied,  it  should  be  too  painful, 
it  was  to  be  dipped  again  in  the  manner  above  stated. 
The  first  dipping,  as  we  have  seen  from  a  preceding  quo- 
tation, is  expressed  by  hapsas  (bapto).  This  shows  that 
in  radical  signification  of  dipping  these  words  are  of  per- 
ectly  the  same  import."  (Carson  on  "Baptism,"  p.  64.) 
Now  we  know  that  a  blister-plaster  is  never  im- 
mersed in  anything  before  it  is  applied.  No  physician, 
from  Hippocrates  or  Galen  down  to  the  present  time,  ever 
directed  that  a  blister-plaster  should  be  immersed  in  oil 
or  anything  else,  especially  in  woman's  milk,  before  it 
should  be  applied.  It  does  seem  that  even  Dr.  Carson, 
with  all  his  zeal  for  immersion,  ought  to  have  known  that. 
But  this  is  only  another  illustration  of  how  the  prejudice 
of  opinion  can  blind  the  best  and  wisest  of  men.  We  have 
seen  that  some  of  the  best  lexicons  define  bapto  to  moisten, 
etc.  We  have  seen  also  that  some  of  the  best  modern 
German  lexicographers,  as  Passow,  Rost  and  Palm,  and 
Pape,  also  so  define  baptidzo.  This  is  unquestionably  an 
example  where  both  these  words  mean  to  moisten  the 
surface  of  the  blister-plaster,  first  with  rose-oil,  before  ap- 
plying, where  bapto  is  used,  and  then,  if  too  painful,  take 
it  off  and  moisten  it  again,  with  Egyptian  ointment  and 
woman's  milk;  in  this  last  case  baptidzo  is  used.  Dr. 
Carson  says:  "Both  these  words  are  of  perfectly  the 
same  import  as  to  mode;  and  this  example  proves  that 
they  both  sometimes  mean  to  moisten.  This  example 
certainly  ought  to  settle  the  question  in  every  mind  that 
is  not  hopelessly  under  the  power  of  prejudice,  as  to  the 
meaning  of  these  words." 

Dr.  CoNANT,  realizing  that  a  blister-plaster  was  not  a 
thing  to  be  immersed  before  applying,  and  that  no  physi- 
cian would  ever  give  such  a  direction  concerning  a  blis- 


82         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

ter-plaster,  undertook  to  avoid  the  difficulty  by  writ- 
ing [pessary]  into  the  text.  He  inclosed  "pessary"  in 
brackets,  showing  that  he  supplied  the  word.  A  bolder 
or  more  unwarranted  liberty  was  never  taken  with  a 
passage  than  Dr.  Conant  has  taken  with  this  passage 
from  Hippocrates.  He  knew  he  had  no  authority  what- 
ever to  write  this  word  into  this  prescription,  for  he  had  it 
before  him;  but  he  only  quotes  part  of  it.  If  he  had 
quoted  the  whole  prescription,  everyone  could  have  seen 
at  a  glance  that  Dr.  Carson  was  right  in  calling  it  a 
blister-plaster,  for  it  is  that,  pure  and  simple,  and  nothing 
more.  Here  is  the  prescription  in  full  as  written  by 
Hippocrates : 

"  ;)(av^aptSas  TreVre  ttXtjv  twv  ttoBwv  kol  Toyy  x^c^aXwi/j  kul 
o-fivpvav  Xi^aviOTov  ajxa.  (TV(XfXL(jyav.  kol  jxiXi  fxer'  avrCjv,  tireiTO 
y8ai//as  £S  aXu<^a  pcStvov  r)  alyvTTTLOv  TrpaOiaOo)  rrjv  rjfxipav^  kol 
iTTTjV  SaxvrjTaL^  a.<^aipk6ai.  Kat  jSaTTTt^etv  iraXiv  h  yaXa  ywat^os 
Koi  fxvpov  AlyvTTTLOv.  Trpoa-TcOepOaL  oi  tovto  es  vvKTa  kol  Oiavti- 
ca-OaL  iv  vSart  evwSet,  irpCTTidivaL  Se  o-reap." 

Translation. — "Five  Spanish  flies  without  their  feet 
and  heads,  and  myrrh,  frankincense,  and  honey  mixed 
with  these;  then  moisten  with  oil  of  roses  or  Egyptian 
oil  and  apply  during  the  day,  and  when  it  stings,  take  it 
off  and  moisten  again  with  woman's  milk  and  Egyptian 
oil,  and  apply  during  the  night,  and  rinse  with  sweet- 
scented  water,  and  apply  tallow." 

This  is  perhaps  as  Hteral  a  translation  of  this  passage 
as  we  can  get.  Bapto  and  haptidzo  in  this  passage  can 
mean  only  to  moisten  the  surface  of  the  blister-plaster,  for 
that  was  what  the  Doctor  directed  to  be  done  before  ap- 
plying it.  The  ingredients  of  which  this  prescription  was 
composed  clearly  demonstrate  that  it  was  a  blister- 
plaster,  and  a  very  powerful  one  at  that — much  more  so 
than  that  in  the  United  States  Dispensatory.     That  is 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         83 

made  of  "Spanish  flies,  yellow  wax,  and  resin,  mixed  with 
lard."  Spanish  flies,  myrrh,  and  frankincense  are  all 
capable  of  blistering.  Frankincense  is  the  turpentine 
taken  from  the  pine-tree  in  tears  or  drops.  Anyone  ac- 
quainted with  the  medical  properties  of  these  ingredients 
will  see  at  a  single  glance  that  the  blistering  preparation 
of  Hippocrates  was  much  stronger  than  that  in  common 
use  now.  A  man  must  be  absolutely  mad  to  talk  seri- 
ously of  making  a  pessary  out  of  such  ingredients. 

Dr.  Conant's  giving  but  a  part  of  the  passage,  and  not 
giving  the  prescription  in  full,  and  writing  in  "pessary"  in 
brackets,  has  led  many  to  adopt  his  reading  who  were  not 
scholars  and  who  had  not  the  original.  In  my  first  debate 
with  Mr.  Sweeney,  he  took  Conant's  position.  So  did  Dr. 
Lucas  in  my  debate  with  him,  at  Golconda,  111.,  in  1867. 
He  had  Dr.  Conant's  "Baptizein,"  and  so  had  I.  I  de- 
manded Conant's  authority  for  putting  in  the  word.  He 
turned  to  me  and  said:  "You  will  not  call  in  question 
Dr.  Conant's  authority  as  a  scholar,  will  you? "  I  replied : 
"Dr.  Conant  was  a  scholar,  but  he  was  a  partisan  on  this 
question,  and  I  would  take  his  word  on  this  question,  just 
as  I  would  yours,  when  he  produced  the  authority  for  his 
statement,  and  no  further."  He  turned  to  me  as  if  feeling 
he  had  me  conquered,  and  handed  me  his  copy  of  Conant, 
and  said:  "Will  Elder  Hughey  read  this  passage  from 
Conant  in  Greek,  and  tell  us  what  prosthestho  means?" 
I  took  the  book  and  said :  "I  will."  I  said :  "It  means 
'to  apply,'  and  is  so  translated  in  this  passage  by  Conant 
himself.  But  what  is  it  that  is  to  be  applied?  Carson 
says  it  was  a  blister;  Conant  says  it  was  a  pessary.  I 
want  to  know  his  authority  for  so  saying."  That  au- 
thority has  never  been  given,  for  there  is  no  authority 
for  it. 


84         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

In  my  debate  with  Elder  Clarke  Braden,  in  1868,  at 
Vienna,  111.,  which  was  published,  he  followed  Conant, 
and  was  so  sure  that  he  was  right,  after  the  debate  he 
sent  to  Leipsic,  and  got  the  original  of  Hippocrates,  and 
wrote  an  appendix  to  the  debate  on  this  passage.  Of 
course  he  had  to  send  it  to  me,  and  I  prepared  a  reply  to  it. 
I  had  him  send  me  the  book,  and  his  appendix  and  my 
reply  were  both  published  in  the  "Debate."  His  transla- 
tion of  the  passage  is  another  illustration  of  what  men 
will  sometimes  do  in  their  efforts  to  support  a  theory 
which  cannot  be  supported  by  sound  arguments  and 
facts.  It  is  strange  indeed  how  a  man  of  Mr.  Braden's 
learning  and  sense  in  other  things  could  be  led  to  publish 
such  an  article  as  his  appendix  in  that  debate  on  Hip- 
pocrates. He  quotes  more  than  an  entire  page  from 
Hippocrates  in  Greek,  and  gives  a  Latin  translation  of  it ; 
and  then  gives  what  he  calls  an  English  translation.  The 
various  prescriptions  contained  in  this  long  extract  from 
Hippocrates  are  all  pessaries  with  Mr.  Braden.  It  does 
not  matter  with  him  what  materials  are  used  or  how  they 
are  applied,  whether  internally  or  externally.  Whether 
they  are  to  be  taken  internally,  to  act  upon  the  liver  and 
produce  catharsis,  or  whether  they  are  to  be  made  into  a 
salve  and  applied  externally  as  a  salve  or  ointment,  it 
makes  no  difference  with  him — they  are  all  the  same  in- 
strument !  He  has  a  wonderful  assortment  of  that  article, 
such  as  no  physician  ever  had,  and  he  puts  them  to  uses 
such  as  no  physician  ever  dreamed  of ! 

I  might  give  a  page  or  two  of  his  "pungent,"  "pur- 
gative," "emollient,"  etc.,  instruments  of  this  character; 
but  I  will  refer  the  reader  to  Appendix  C  of  "  Braden  and 
Hughey  Debate"  for  the  most  original  treatise  on  that 
instrument  to  be  found  in  the  English  language.  But  I 
must  give  one  more  example.     He  reaches  the  climax  in 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         85 

this  wonderful  treatise  in  the  next  to  the  last  of  his  ex- 
amples, where  he  suppresses  a  part  of  a  sentence,  and 
makes  the  Doctor  say  what  he  never  said  and  never  in- 
tended to  say.  Hippocrates  wrote:  ''Prostheta  een  mee 
ta  katopata  katheira."  Mr.  Braden,  in  his  translation  of 
this  prescription,  dropped  out  ta  katopata,  and  translated 
it,  "Pessaries,  if  these  do  not  purge."  Why  did  he  do 
this?  Had  he  translated  it  correctly,  it  would  have  sent 
the  physician's  prescription  down  his  patient's  throat, 
and  that  would  have  spoiled  his  whole  argument!  What 
was  he  to  do?  If  he  had  translated  this  prescription  as 
he  had  been  translating,  it  would  have  read:  "If  these 
pessaries,  when  swallowed  down,  do  not  purge."  But 
this  would  not  do;  so  he  dropped  out  ta  katopata  alto- 
gether! A  proper  translation  of  this  prescription  would 
also  have  shown  that  his  translation  of  prostheton  and 
prostheta  in  this  entire  connection  was  wrong ;  that  these 
words  did  not  mean  pessary  and  pessaries,  but  prepara- 
tions of  different  medicines  added  together.  The  Uteral 
meaning  of  prostheton  is,  "added,  put  on,  fitted  to";  and 
these  prostheta  were  medicines  added  together,  and  ap- 
plied as  directed.  This  clears  up  all  of  Mr.  Braden's 
difficulties,  and  saves  him  all  the  trouble  of  making  pes- 
saries out  of  salves,  ointments,  and  purgative  potions! 

But  the  trouble  with  Dr.  Conant,  Mr.  Braden,  and 
those  who  follow  Dr.  Conant  is,  Liddell  and  Scott  give  as 
a  third  definition  of  prostheton,  "a  pessary."  This  is  not 
its  first  or  ordinary  definition,  but  a  remote  and  seldom- 
used  definition.  Dr.  Conant,  Mr.  Braden,  and  those  who 
follow  Dr.  Conant  here  violate  that  rule  of  interpretation 
which  they  elsewhere  insist  upon  so  strongly,  that  words 
are  always  to  be  understood  in  their  first  or  ordinary 
meaning,  unless  the  connection  in  which  they  are  used 
fixes  another  meaning  upon  them. 


86         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

The  proper  Greek  word  for  pessary  is  pessos,  not 
prostheton.  Ballanon  is  also  used  for  pessary.  Webster 
derives  the  English  pessary  from  the  Latin  pessus  and  the 
Greek  pessos.  We  can  see  how  accurate  Mr.  Braden  is 
in  his  statements  by  the  following : 

"4.  The  Greek  word  for  pessary  (prostheton)  oc- 
curs in  the  context  preceding  the  passage,  and  is  clearly- 
understood  in  nearly  a  dozen  places.  The  verb  pros- 
tithemi  means  to  make  a  support,  or  prop,  or  pessary, 
being  used  instead  of  its  derivative  prostitheto,  which 
means  specifically  to  make  a  pessary.  Hence  in  con- 
nection with  the  verb  ruh,  the  idea  is  rub  them  together, 
and  place  them  together  in  a  pessary." 

On  this  passage  from  Mr.  Braden  I  remark : 

1.  He  does  not  intimate  that  there  is  any  other 
Greek  word  for  pessary  but  prostheton. 

2.  He  does  not  tell  us  that  pessos  is  the  proper 
Greek  word  for  pessary,  and  that  Webster  traces  the 
English  word  back  to  this  Greek  word. 

3.  He  does  not  tell  us  that  the  first  definition  of 
prostheton  is  ''added,  put,  or  fitted  to,"  and  that  it  is  only 
in  its  third  or  remote  sense  that  it  is  defined  in  the  sense 
he  puts  upon  it. 

4.  He  tells  us:  "The  verb  prostithemi  means  to 
make  a  support,  or  prop,  or  pessary."  This  statement  is 
utterly  without  foundation.  Prostithemi  is  never  so  de- 
fined and  has  no  such  meaning.  It  means,  "to  add,  add 
to,"  etc.  But  it  never  means  "to  make  a  support,  or  prop, 
or  pessary." 

5.  He  assumes  that  the  writer  did  not  know  what 
word  he  wanted  to  use,  and  that  he  used  one  word  for 
another  of  a  totally  different  meaning. 

6.  Hippocrates  uses  prostithemi  hundreds  of  times 
and  in  all  its  forms;  but  when  he  speaks  of  applying  a 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        87 

pessary,  he  uses  pessos  with  it,  as  on  page  594  of  this  same 
volume,  ''Pessous  prostithesthoo,"  "Apply  the  pessary"; 
or  ballanon,  as  on  page  707,  in  this  immediate  connection, 
"Ballanon  kai  prostithemi."  If  prostithemi  is  used  by 
Hippocrates  in  the  sense  or  senses  for  which  Mr.  Braden 
contends,  why  should  he  use  those  words  which  unmis- 
takably mean  "pessary"  with  it?  The  very  fact  that 
Hippocrates  uses  prostithemi  thus  proves  that  he  does  not 
use  it  in  the  sense  for  which  Mr.  Braden  contends,  but 
simply  "to  apply." 

Again,  Mr.  Braden  says : 

"Every  physician  knows  that  a  pessary  must  be 
dipped  before  insertion,  and  the  Greek  writer  used  hap- 
tidzo,  the  word  which  peculiarly  and  specifically  means 
that  action." 

It  is  surprising  that  a  man  of  ordinary  sense  could 
write  such  a  sentence  as  the  above.  Every  physician, 
and  everybody  else  who  knows  what  that  instrument  is 
used  for,  or  anything  about  its  use,  knows  that  before 
using  it  is  never  "dipped"  in  anything,  much  less  "in 
woman's  milk" !  Some  emollient  substance  is  smeared 
over  it  to  prepare  it  for  use,  but  "woman's  milk"  would 
not  be  a  suitable  unguent  for  that  purpose.  No  physician 
would  ever  use  a  word  which  specifically  means  to  dip  in 
giving  directions  how  to  prepare  a  pessary  or  blister- 
plaster  for  use.  It  is  not  mode  he  wants,  but  efject.  It 
is  putting  the  emollient  substance  on  the  object,  not 
plunging  the  object  into  it,  that  he  wants. 

We  have  clearly  shown  that  Dr.  Conant's  and  Mr. 
Braden' s  translation  of  prostheton  is  out  of  the  question, 
and  that  it  is,  as  Dr.  Carson  states,  simply  a  blister- 
plaster  that  is  directed  to  be  baptized;  and  we  know  a 
blister-plaster  is  never  immersed  in  anything  before  being 
applied.     The  fact  that  Hippocrates  here  uses  baptidzo 


88         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

proves  that  it  does  not  necessarily  mean  to  dip  or  im- 
merse ;  but  is  simply  a  word  expressing  effect,  not  mode. 
Mode  was  not  in  his  mind.  He  did  not  command  mode. 
Effect  was  in  his  mind,  and  he  commanded  effect,  which 
was  the  thing  he  wanted.  The  same  would  have  been 
the  case  if  it  had  been  a  pessary.  Hence  nothing  has 
been  gained  by  the  tremendous  efforts  of  Dr.  Conant  and 
Mr.  Braden  to  make  a  pessary  out  of  a  blister-plaster. 
They  had  better  have  accepted  Dr.  Carson's  position, 
and  saved  themselves  from  all  this  trouble  and  nonsense. 
Carson  was  honest.  He  knew  it  was  a  blister-plaster, 
and  he  said  so,  and  relied  on  haptidzo  to  dip  or  immerse 
it.  But  Conant,  Braden,  and  others  knew  that  a  blister- 
plaster  could  not  be  immersed,  and  that  no  doctor  would 
ever  direct  one  to  be  immersed;  hence  they  must  find 
something  that  could  be  immersed  without  ruining  it. 

This  passage  is  the  more  important  as  it  is  the  first 
example  of  the  use  of  haptidzo  in  its  literal  sense  that  has 
come  down  to  us  in  Greek  literature.  Hippocrates  was 
born  B.  C.  430,  forty-six  years  before  Aristotle,  who  is 
the  next  to  use  it  in  a  literal  sense.  Hippocrates  uses 
both  hapto  and  haptidzo  to  express  the  same  thing — the 
moistening  of  a  blister-plaster  before  applying  it.  It  is 
remarkable  that  in  the  first  example  we  have  of  the  literal 
use  of  haptidzo  in  any  Greek  writer  it  unquestionably 
means  "TO  moistkn." 

The  next  example  of  the  literal  use  of  haptidzo  is  by 
Aristotle.  He  was  the  most  accurate  and  thorough  in 
his  scholarship  in  his  native  tongue  of  all  the  classic  Greek 
writers.     He  says: 

"They  say  that  the  Phoenicians  who  inhabit  the  so- 
called  Gadira,  sailing  four  days  outside  of  the  Pillars  of 
Hercules  with  an  east  wind,  come  to  certain  desert  places 
full  of  rushes  and  sea-weed,  which  when  it  is  ebb-tide  are 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        89 

not  IMMERSED  (baptized),  but  when  it  is  flood-tide  are 
overflowed."     (Conant's  translation.) 

Conant  here  translates  baptizesthai  "immersed,"  and 
katakludzesthai  "overflowed."  Both  these  words  express 
the  same  thing,  the  action  of  the  water  in  coming  over 
the  land.  There  was  no  immersion  in  this  case :  the  water 
came  upon  the  land,  the  land  was  not  plunged  into  the 
water.  Katakludzo  is  thus  defined  by  Liddell  and  Scott: 
"To  dash  over,  deluge,  flood;  to  fill  full  of  water;  to  deluge, 
flood,  or  fill  over- full  with.  II.  To  wash  down  or  away; 
also,  to  wash  out."  There  is  no  immerse  in  this  word; 
and  Aristotle  uses  it  as  equivalent  to  baptidzo.  It  is  a 
most  significant  fact  that  in  the  two  first  examples  of 
baptidzo  that  we  have  in  Greek  literature,  where  baptidzo 
is  used  in  its  literal  sense,  the  first  means  ''to  moisten," 
and  the  second  means  "to  dash."  Neither  can  be  forced 
to  mean  "immerse." 

Another  example  furnished  by  Carson  and  Conant  is 
taken  from  the  Homeric  "Allegories,"  as  given  by  Con- 
ant, who  translates  it  thus: 

"Since  the  mass  of  iron,  drawn  red-hot  from  the 
furnace,  is  plunged  (baptized)  in  [with]  water,  and  the 
fiery  glow  by  its  own  nature  is  quenched  with  water, 
ceases." 

On  this  passage  we  remark:  i.  This  is  a  "mass 
of  red-hot  iron,"  a  thing  not  to  be  plunged  in  water. 
2.  Hudati  baptizetai  is  not  "plunged  in  water,"  but  ''bap- 
tized with  water."  On  this  passage  from  Homer  the 
learned  Dr.  Dale,  in  his  "Classic  Baptism,"  pp.  325-326, 
remarks : 

"i.     It  is  as  certain  as  anything  in  philology,  that 
'plunge,'  distinctively,  as  expressing  a  form  of  action, 
does  not  define  (SaTTTiio)  (baptidzo).     To  overflow,   as  ex- 
pressing a  form  of  action,  is  as  near  the  contradictory  of 
—7— 


90         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

'plunge'  as  it  can  well  be;  yet  'overflow'  is  used  by  Bap- 
tist scholars  to  define  this  Greek  word.  And  in  such  use 
'overflow'  performs  its  duty,  to  say  the  least,  as  faith- 
fully as  does  'plunge.'  But  it  is  a  philological  axiom, 
that  where  two  differing  forms  of  action  can  be  employed 
in  the  exposition  of  the  same  word,  such  word  can  be 
strictly  defined  by  neither. 

"  'Plunge'  has  no  right  to  appear  as  the  critical  rep- 
resentative of  PaiTTi^oi  (baptidzo).  And  in  any  case  of 
baptism  where  the  form  of  act  is  not  expressly  stated  (it 
can  never  be  learned  from  the  word  itself),  it  is  entirely 
inexcusable  for  anyone  to  bring  forward  the  form  of  an 
act,  insist  upon  its  autocratic  rights,  and  fashion  the 
phraseology  after  its  model. 

"No  argument  can  be  grounded  on  the  assumption 
of  a  plunging. 

"2.  The  simple  dative,  with  pairri^oi  {baptidzo) y  an- 
nounces, with  authority,  therefore,  the  presence  of  agen- 
cy, and  not  of  element. 

"There  is,  therefore,  no  authority  in  vSart  ^aTrrt^cTat 
(hudati  haptizetai)  for  saying  that  hot  iron  is  'plunged  in 
water.'  If  it  is  urged,  in  defense,  that  water  is  capable  of 
receiving  hot  iron  by  plunging,  this  is  freely  admitted. 
If  it  is  urged,  'Hot  iron  is  very  frequently ,  in  fact,  plunged 
in  water,'  this  too  is  unhesitatingly  admitted.  After 
all  else  can  be  said,  the  reply  is  short  and  crushing: 
(i)  PaTTTiio)  says  nothing  about  plunging.  (2)  Hot 
iron  may  be  mersed  in  other  ways  than  by  plunging. 
(3)  The  phraseology  indicates  the  agency  by  which, 
and  not  the  element  in  which,  the  result  is  accomplished. 
Rational  discussion  must  here  end." 

In  addition  to  Dr.  Dale's  remarks,  I  want  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Conant,  in  the  very  next  Une, 
translates   hudati   correctly    "with  water."     Hudati  kat- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         91 

asbesthen  he  translates  "quenched  with  water."  Why- 
did  he  not  translate  hudati  "with  water"  in  the  first  line 
where  it  is  used  with  baptizetai9  Simply  because  it 
would  have  baptized  the  "mass  of  iron"  with  and  not  in 
water,  and  this  would  not  have  done  at  all.  It  would 
have  taken  this  passage  out  of  the  hands  of  immersionists 
and  given  it  to  us.  So  truth  must  be  sacrificed  to  sustain 
theory!  The  truth  of  the  case  is,  the  "mass  of  red-hot 
iron"  was  drawn  from  the  furnace  and  cold  water  was 
thrown  on  it,  and  this  is  expressed  by  hudati  baptizetai, 
"baptized  with  water.'' 

Dr.  Conant  gives  us  the  example  of  the  baptism  of 
Bacchus  by  the  sea:  "Why  do  they  pour  sea- water  into 
wine,  and  say  that  fishermen  received  an  oracle  com- 
manding them  to  immerse  (baptize)  Bacchus  in  (or  at) 
the  sea?" 

This  is  indeed  a  strange  immersion!  An  immersion 
of  Bacchus,  an  imaginary  being,  having  no  personality, 
immersed  by  pouring  sea-water  into  wine!  Tempering 
wine  by  pouring  sea- water  into  it  is  immersing  Bacchus  1 
That  is  what  Dr.  Conant  solemnly  says.  This  shows  us 
what  infinite  folly  men  will  immerse  themselves  in  when 
trying  to  support  a  theory  which  cannot  be  supported  by 
facts  and  common  sense.  Here  is  a  plain  case  of  baptism 
by  POURING,  and  Dr.  Conant  solemnly  declares  that  Bac- 
chus was  immersed  by  this  means!  But  this  is  not  all. 
Dr.  Conant  translates  pros  "in."  But  he  did  not  have 
the  hardihood  to  let  that  go  without  putting  in  paren- 
theses (or  at).  This  is  another  case  which  Dr.  Conant 
furnishes  us  where  baptidzo  cannot  mean  immerse;  but 
where  it  simply  means  to  pour. 

Quite  a  number  of  both  Dr.  Carson's  and  Dr.  Conant's 
examples  are  where  baptidzo  means  "to  sink,"  as  of  ships 
sinking  to  the  bottom  and  remaining  there;   or  of  per- 


92         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

sons  drowning.  Every  such  example  is  squarely  against 
their  position;  for  with  them  the  emersion  in  baptism  is 
just  as  essential  as  the  immersion.  Dr.  Conant,  it  is  true, 
holds  that  emersion  is  not  in  baptidzo,  but  it  is  in  the 
act  which  he  calls  baptism;  and  his  position  on  the 
meaning  of  baptidzo  only  proves  that  it  does  not  express 
the  action  which  he  calls  baptism. 

Carson,  Campbell,  and  the  advocates  of  immersion 
in  general  hold  that  emersion  is  expressed  by  the  word  as 
well  as  immersion.  If  they  were  to  insist  on  this  classical 
meaning  of  baptidzo,  which  is  illustrated  by  these  ex- 
amples of  the  sinking  of  ships,  they  would  not  make  many 
converts.  Most  people  would  choose  the  "land  route." 
Why  do  they  bring  up  these  examples  when  they  com- 
pletely set  aside  their  mode  of  baptism?  Every  such  ex- 
ample as  clearly  sets  aside  their  mode  or  action  of  baptism 
as  do  the  examples  where  it  clearly  means  to  pour  or 
sprinkle.  Dr.  Carson's  mode  and  Mr.  Campbell's  action 
of  baptism  is  not  sinking  to  the  bottom  and  remaining 
there,  nor  is  it  drowning.  It  is  putting  a  person  moment- 
arily under  water  and  then  immediately  lifting  him  out 
again.  If  baptidzo  means  to  immerse,  and  if  it  expresses 
the  mode  or  action  of  baptism,  it  is  this  mode  or  action 
which  it  expresses.  If  it  does  not  express  this  mode  or 
action,  it  does  not  express  the  mode  or  action  of  the  Chris- 
tian ordinance,  and  consequently  the  mode  or  action  of 
baptism  must  be  found  outside  of  the  word  baptidzo.  It 
seems  that  this  is  so  plain  that  a  child  cannot  help  but 
see  it.  As  so  much  stress  is  put  by  immersionists  on  the 
meaning  of  this  word,  we  must  hold  them  strictly  to  what 
they  mean  by  baptism. 

Another  large  class  of  examples  adduced  by  Conant 
and  others  to  prove  that  baptidzo  always  means  to  im- 
merse is  where  it  means  drunk  or  to  make  drunk;  also 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.         93 

trouble,  debts,  etc.  Dr.  Conant  usually  translates  it  in 
these  examples  '^whelmed''  or  "overwhel7ned."  Now  in  all 
these  examples  7node  or  action  is  entirely  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. Effect  or  condition  is  the  only  thing  expressed  by 
baptidzo  or  baptismos.  Every  one  of  these  examples  is  as 
thoroughly  against  their  position  as  to  mode  or  action  as 
if  it  meant  to  pour  or  sprinkle.  Why  cannot  these  over- 
zealous  advocates  of  immersion  see  this?  The  mode  of 
Conant's  ''whelming'^  or  "overwhelming"  is  never  by  im- 
mersion, but  always  by  coming  upon!  A  man  is  not 
"plunged"  in  drunkenness;  it  comes  upon  him  as  the  re- 
sult of  drinking.  A  man  is  not  "plunged"  in  trouble  or 
debt ;  they  come  upon  him.  Every  such  example  of  bap- 
tidzo is  an  illustration  of  its  meaning  "to  come  upon," 
and  cannot  be  pleaded  as  examples  favoring  immersion. 
They  are  squarely  against  immersion,  and  prove  con- 
clusively that  baptidzo  does  not  mean  immersion  in  any 
of  these  examples.  They  must  all  be  given  up  by  im- 
mersionists.  It  is  in  all  such  examples  a  word  expressing 
effect,  not  mode  or  action. 

Let  us  take  another  class  of  Dr.  Conant's  examples, 
where  whole  cities  or  countries  are  said  to  be  baptized. 
He  gives  us  three  examples,  two  of  which  are  taken  from 
Josephus,  and  are  as  follows: 

I.  "The  people  of  Jerusalem,  expostulating  with 
Josephus  on  his  purpose  to  abandon  the  besieged  city 
and  its  inhabitants  to  their  fate,  say  to  him:  'And  it  did 
not  become  him,  either  to  abandon  friends  or  to  fly  from 
enemies;  nor  to  leap  off,  as  from  a  ship  overtaken  by  a 
storm,  into  which  he  had  entered  in  fair  weather;  that  he 
would  himself  overwhelm  (baptize)  the  city,  as  no  one 
would  longer  dare  to  make  resistance  to  the  enemy  when 
he  was  gone  through  whom  their  courage  was  sustained. '  " 


94         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

2.  "Speaking- of  the  evils  inflicted  by  the  band  of 
robber-chiefs  who  found  their  way  into  the  city  of  Je- 
rusalem during  the  siege,  he  says:  'Who,  even  apart 
from  the  sedition,  afterwards  whelmed  {baptized)  the 
city.'  " 

Surely  there  is  no  ''dip''  or  ''plunge"  or  "immerse"  in 
these  examples.  The  idea  is,  the  calamities  come  upon  the 
city,  not  the  city  "dipped"  into  the  calamities.  It  is  ef- 
fect, not  mode,  that  is  expressed  here.  How  could  a  word 
that  simply  expresses  mode  or  action  be  used  to  express 
not  mode  or  action,  but  simply  effect?  But  the  effect  was 
produced  by  calamities  "coming  upon." 

His  next  example  is  taken  from  Himerius,  Selection 
XV.,  who  says,  speaking  of  Themistocles :  "He  was 
great  at  Salamis ;  for  there,  fighting,  he  whELMEd  (e^aTrriorc, 
baptized)  all  Asia." 

Here,  again,  there  is  no  "dip,"  no  "plunge,"  no  "im- 
merse." Mode  or  action  is  not  in  the  word  at  all.  Effect 
is  all  that  is  expressed.  The  effect  of  the  victory  gained 
by  Themistocles  at  Salamis  was  felt  in  all  Asia ;  and  this 
is  called  the  baptism  of  all  Asia.  We  ask  again.  How 
could  a  word  simply  expressing  mode  or  action  be  used  to 
express  this  effect?  The  power  of  the  Greeks  was  ex- 
tended over  Asia  as  a  result  of  the  victory  of  Salamis,  and 
this  is  another  example  of  baptidzo  meaning  "to  come 
upon,"  and  not  "to  plunge  into." 

We  will  examine  a  few  more  of  Dr.  Conant's  ex- 
amples. In  his  Example  39,  taken  from  Heliodorus, 
speaking  of  a  band  of  pirates,  who  had  seized  a  vessel 
and  were  unable  to  manage  it  in  the  storm  that  ensued, 
he  says:  "And  already  becoming  immergEd  (baptized), 
and  wanting  little  of  sinking,  some  of  the  pirates  at  first 
attempted  to  leave,  and  get  aboard  of  their  own  bark." 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        95 

Here  is  certainly  a  baptism  without  immersion;  for 
the  ship  is  ''baptized,''  but  is  not  sunk.  Can  a  ship  or 
anything  be  baptized  and  not  sunkf  Must  not  the  bap- 
tized object,  according  to  Dr.  Conant,  be  sunk,  or  put 
under  water,  in  order  to  be  baptized?  But  this  ship  is 
"already  baptized,''  according  to  Dr.  Conant,  and  only 
lacking  a  little  of  going  under!  Baptized  and  still  not  im- 
mersed, or  put  under !  That  will  do.  We  will  not  object 
to  that  kind  of  baptism — baptism  without  ini7nersion. 
The  waves  dashing  upon  the  vessel  baptized  it,  but  they 
did  not  immerse  it. 

Let  us  look  at  his  Example  1 1 1 ,  taken  from  Achilles 
Tatius,  where  the  writer  says:  "What  so  great  wrong 
have  we  done,  as  in  a  few  days  to  be  whelmed  (baptized) 
with  such  a  multitude  of  evils?"  Notice  the  translation 
of  Dr.  Conant.  He  does  not  say  "immersed  in,"  but 
"baptized  with,"  such  a  multitude  of  evils!  How  could 
they  be  immersed  with  these  evils?  Dr.  Conant's  use  of 
the  word  "with"  here  shows  that  he  understood  that 
there  was  no  immersion  in  the  case,  but  that  the  afflictions 
came  upon  them,  and  not  that  they  were  "plunged"  into 
them.  Here  is  a  baptism  with,  and  not  in,  the  element 
used,  and  hence  it  is  not  an  immkrsion.  Dr.  Conant 
himself  being  judge. 

In  Example  121,  taken  from  Heliodorus,  he  says: 
"When  midnight  had  plunged  (baptized)  the  city  in  sleep, 
an  armed  band  of  revellers  took  possession  of  the  dwell- 
ing of  Chariclea."  No  city  was  ever  "plunged"  in  sleep. 
Sleep  came  gently  over  the  city;  not  violently,  as  if  all 
were  suddenly  "plunged,"  but  gently,  one  by  one,  they 
fell  under  the  power  of  sleep.  Sleep  coming  over  them; 
not  they  being  "plunged"  into  it. 

All  such  examples  prove  that  baptidzo  is  not  a  word 
expressing  mode  or  action,  but  result  or  effect.     We  need 


96         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

not  pursue  this  line  of  argument  any  further,  for  all  such 
examples  prove  that  baptidzo  is  not  a  word  of  mode  or 
action,  but  of  effect  or  condition;  and  they  effectually  set 
aside  the  claims  of  immersion. 

Dr.  Conant,  in  his  "Baptizein,"  renders  baptidzo  by 
ten  words,  if  I  have  counted  correctly,  and  there  is  only  a 
discrepancy  of  one  in  his  examples  of  Greek  use  and  my 
count.     He  translates  6a/>^t(i20  and  baptismos  ''immerse" 
and  "immersion"  115  times,  "whelm"  53  times,  "over- 
whelm" 17  times,  "submerse"  24  times,  "dip"  and  "dip- 
ping" 12  times,  "immerge"  12  times,  "plunge"  17  times, 
"imbathed"  2  times,  "demersed"  2  times,  and  "undergo" 
5  times.     (See  "Baptizein,"  page  99,  where  is  his  trans- 
lation of  Mark  x.  38-39  and  Luke  xii.  50.)     This  is  pretty 
good  for  Dr.  Carson's  and  Mr.  Campbell's  stictly  univocaIv 
word !     A   word   strictly  univocal  with   TEN   meanings ! 
If  baptidzo  is  strictly  a  univocal  word,  why  not  al- 
ways translate  it  by  the  same  word?     Do  "whelm"  and 
"overwhelm"  mean  the  same,  as  to  mode  or  action,  a's 
"immerse"?     The    primary    meaning    of    "whelm,"    as 
defined  by  Webster,  is,  "to  cover  with  water,  or  other 
fluid."     The  mode  or  action  of  "whelm"  is  to  come  upon, 
not  to  plunge  into.     Immerse  is  a  secondary  meaning,  be- 
cause a  thing  may  be  covered  or  enveloped  by  that  means. 
^^^1    Mr.  Webster   defines   "overwhelm":     "i.  To  cover 
over  completely,  as  by  a  wave;   to  overflow  and  bury 
beneath;  to   submerge;  to  engulf;   hence   figuratively,  to 
immerse  and  bear  down;    to  overpower;     to  crush;     to 
bury;  to  oppress,  engross,  etc.,  overpoweringly." 

The  primary  and  ordinary  meaning  of  both  these 
words  is  to  "come  upon,"  not  to  "plunge  in" ;  and  this  is 
the  idea  expressed  in  all  the  examples  given  by  Dr.  Co- 
nant, where  he  translates  baptidzo  "whelm"  or  "over- 
whelm."    The  mode  or  action  in  all  these  examples  is 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.        97 

that  of  "coming  upon."     There  is  no  "dip"  or  "plunge" 

ar  in  any  of  these  examples,  whether  the  words  are  used  in 

their  literal  or  figurative  sense;  and  Dr.  Conant  knew  it. 

Take  his  Example  24,  the  "Oracle  of  the  Sibyl,  re- 
specting the  city  of  Athens."  His  translation  is:  "A 
bladder,  thou  mayest  be  immersed  (baptized) ;  but  it  is 
not  possible  for  thee  to  sink."  The  bladder  is  baptized, 
but  it  is  not  sunk!  How  can  a  bladder  or  anything  else 
be  immersed,  that  is  not  sunk  or  put  under  water?  But 
our  immersionist  friends  contend  that  to  be  baptized  here 
means  momentarily  to  be  put  under  water  and  then  being 
lifted  out  again,  in  contradistinction  from  sinking  to  the 
bottom.  But  this  is  not  the  figure.  A  bladder  filled 
with  wind  and  cast  upon  the  sea  is  never  immersed,  even 
momentarily.  It  is  tossed  upon  the  waves,  sprinkled  by 
the  spray,  but  it  will  not  sink;  it  will  ride  the  waves  and 
keep  on  top.  If  a  wave  should  dash  over  it,  which  is  not 
at  all  probable,  it  would  not  be  an  immersion;  the  mode 
would  be  that  of  "dashing'*;  the  water  would  be  dashed 
or  thrown  upon  the  bladder,  and  not  the  bladder  ''plunged" 
into  the  water.  ''Plunging,"  "dipping,"  or  "immersion,'' 
even  for  a  moment,  is  utterly  out  of  the  question  in 
this  case. 

But  Dr.  Conant  reaches  the  climax  when  he  trans- 
lates baptidzo  and  baptismos  "undergo."  (Mark  x.  38-39 
and  Luke  xii.  50.)     On  page  99  of  "Baptizein"  he  says: 

"With  this  usage  accords  also  the  metaphorical  sense 
of  overwhelming  suffering,  found  in  Mark  10:38-39,  'Can 
ye  undergo  the  immersion  [baptism]  that  I  must  un- 
dergo?' and  in  Luke  12:50,  *I  have  an  immersion  [bap- 
tism] to  undergo';  a  sense  founded  on  the  idea  of  total 
submergence,  as  in  floods  of  sorrow." 

This  is  a  complete  giving  up  of  the  whole  question  of 
mode  or  action  as  to  the  meaning  of  baptidzo.     Is  undergo 


98         The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

a  word  of  mode  or  action?  Does  it  mean  "to  immerse"'? 
Why  substitute  it  for  baptidzo  and  haptismos  in  these  pas- 
sages? Dr.  Conant  says:  "The  Greek  word  haptizein 
expresses  nothing  more  than  the  act  of  immersion.''  How, 
then,  can  it  be  translated  ''undergo''}  Does  undergo 
"express  nothing  more  than  the  act  of  immersion"?  Dr. 
Conant's  defense  of  this  translation  is  utterly  futile,  and 
only  shows  the  subterfuges  to  which  men  will  resort  when 
pressed  with  difficulties  which  they  cannot  overcome. 
This  is  plainly  an  abandonment  of  the  whole  fundamental 
proposition  of  Dr.  Conant,  and  of  all  other  immersion- 
ists,  that  baptidzo  is  a  specific  word,  always  meaning  to 

IMMERSE. 

Classical  use  utterly  fails  to  sustain  our  immersionist 
friends,  and  must  be  abandoned  by  them  as  Dr.  Carson 
abandoned  the  lexicons.  Dr.  Conant  furnishes  us  with 
numerous  examples  which  prove  the  utter  fallacy  of  their 
position,  that  baptidzo  is  strictly  a  univocal  word. 

As  we  have  seen,  many  of  his  examples  prove  that  it 
often  expresses  state  or  condition,  without  any  reference 
to  mode  or  action;  while  the  mode  or  action  which  pro- 
duced that  state  or  condition  was  by  "coming  upon," 
''dashing  or  throwing  on,"  or  "pouring  in  or  on."  A  more 
extended  examination  of  Dr.  Conant's  examples  would 
more  fully  show  the  same  thing.  But  those  examined 
are  sufficient.  Classical  use  gives  its  testimony  unhes- 
itatingly against  the  position  of  immersionists,  taking  Dr. 
Conant's  own  examples. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Jewish  Use  of  "Baptidzo"  and  "Baptismos." 

Use  in  the  Septuagint,  the  Apocrypha,  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament, Where  John's  Baptism  and  the  Christian 
Ordinance  Are  Not  Spoken  of. 

To  EVERY  thoughtful  mind,  not  wholly  dominated 
by  prejudice,  the  use  of  baptidzo  and  baptismos  among  the 
Jews  from  the  time  the  Greek  language  was  introduced 
into  Palestine,  after  the  conquest  of  Alexander,  until  the 
coming  of  Christ,  and  during  His  Hfe  and  the  lives  of  the 
apostles,  when  John's  baptism  and  the  Christian  ordi- 
nance are  not  spoken  of,  must  settle  the  meaning  of  these 
terms  when  applied  to  John's  baptism  and  the  Christian 
ordinance.  This  is  so  obvious,  as  we  have  shown  in  the 
preceding  chapter  on  the  use  of  words  as  the  sole  au- 
thority in  fixing  their  meaning,  that  we  wonder  that 
anyone  would  for  a  moment  call  it  in  question. 

We  want  to  call  attention  again  to  the  statement  of 
Dr.  HiNTON,  an  eminent  Baptist  writer,  on  this  point, 
who  says:  "The  question  is.  In  what  sense  did  Christ 
and  His  apostles  use  the  term  baptidzo,  and  what  did  they 
design  the  disciples,  then  and  now,  to  understand  by  it?" 
The  use  the  Jews  made  of  these  terms  during  the  time 
specified  gave  them  a  fixed  and  definite  meaning.  That 
meaning  was  "to  cleanse,  to  purify,"  for  they  were  ap- 
plied to  the  various  purifications  of  the  Jews,  and  these 
purifications  were  specifically  called  baptisms;  and  when 
the  Jews  purified  themselves,  they  were  said  to  baptize 
themselves,  or  be  baptized. 

99 


loo       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

The  first  example  of  its  use  in  the  Septuagint  is 
Second  Kings  v.  14,  which  reads  in  our  common  version: 
"Then  went  he  down,  and  dipped  (baptized)  himself 
seven  times  in  Jordan."  Ebaptisato  is  here  translated 
"dipped."  Immersionists  claim  that  this  is  a  case  of  un- 
doubted immersion;  and  many  writers  on  our  side  con- 
cede this  case  to  them.  But  we  by  no  means  admit  that 
this  is  a  case  of  immersion.  We  do  not  believe  that 
Naaman  immersed  himself  at  all.  The  claim  of  im- 
mersionists in  this  case  is :  ^  .' 

1.  Baptidzo  always  means  "to  dip  or  immerse,"  and 
consequently  Naaman  immersed  himself. 

2.  They  claim  that  the  Hebrew  word  tahal,  pro- 
nounced "taval,"  always  means  "to  immerse,"  and  that 
baptidzo  is  its  exact  equivalent  in  Greek,  and  conse- 
quently the  case  of  immersion  is  clearly  made  out. 

We  have  shown  that  their  claim  that  baptidzo  al- 
ways means  to  dip  or  immerse  is  utterly  groundless,  by 
the  lexicons  and  by  the  classical  use  of  the  word.  Dr. 
DiTZLKR,  in  his  great  work  on  "Baptism"  (which  I  again 
want  to  commend  to  the  reader  as  the  most  thorough  and 
scholarly  work  on  the  subject  ever  published  in  this 
country,  and  which  should  be  read  by  everyone  who 
wishes  a  thorough,  critical,  philological,  and  conclusive 
argument  on  the  subject),  proves  that  their  claim  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  tabal  is  just  as  groundless 
as  their  claim  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  bap- 
tidzo. He  quotes  a  number  of  the  greatest  Hebrew  lex- 
icons and  scholars,  showing  that  tabal  has  the  general 
meaning  of  "to  moisten,"  "to  wet,"  "to  dip,"  "to 
sprinkle."  He  quotes  Hottenger,  Schindler,  Buxtorf, 
Stokius,  K.  Leigh,  Castell,  and  Fiirst,  all  giving  the  same 
general  meanings.     Finally  he  says: 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       loi 

"FuKrst:  We  quote  the  latest  and  most  scientific 
Hebraist  that  has  Hved  for  ages,  Rabbi  Fiirst.  The 
greatest  Hebrew  lexicon  ever  yet  produced,  restricted  to 
the  Hebrew  and  a  few  Chaldee  words  in  the  Bible  Hebrew, 
as  well  as  the  only  one  yet  that  has  any  claim  to  a  correct 
analysis  of  the  root-meaning  of  words,  is  by  the  great 
Jewish  rabbi,  Julius  Fiirst,  1840,  and  his  perfected  lexicon 
of  a  much  later  date — last  edition,  1867. 

"The  first  is  a  great  folio,  with  complete  concordance. 
The  one  in  German  (lexicon) ,  the  other  in  lyacin. 

"FuBRST:  Tabal,  to  moisten,  to  wet,  to  sprinkle,  to 
immerse.  The  root  is  bal.  Compare  the  words  derived 
from  the  same  root  with  kindred  meanings — to  flow,  drop 
down,  pour,  pour  water  on,  stream  forth,  sprinkle.  Sep- 
tuagint,  haptein,  haptidzein,  moluein. 

"In  his  later  lexicon,  where  he  brings  out  all  the 
results  of  his  labors,  1867,  this  distinguished  Jewish 
professor  of  Leipzig  thus  defines  tabal:  'To  baptize,' 
'to  moisten,'  'to  sprinkle,'  rigare,  tingare;  then,  'to  dip,' 
'immerse.'  The  fundamental  signification  of  the  stem  is 
'to  moisten,'  'to  besprinkle.'  "  (Ditzler  on  "Baptism," 
pp.  290-296.) 

Having  thus  ascertained  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
word  tabal,  which  is  translated  in  the  Septuagint  by  bap- 
tidzo,  and  in  our  common  version  by  "dipped,"  we  are 
prepared  to  examine  the  passage  in  the  light  of  the  Jewish 
method  of  cleansing  the  leper.  Don't  forget  that  every 
one  of  the  lexicons  referred  to  agrees  with  Fiirst  in  giving 
"to  moisten,"  "to  wet,"  "to  sprinkle"  as  the  first  or 
primary  meaning  of  tabal,  and  "to  dip"  or  "immerse"  as 
a  secondary  meaning.  We  must  hold  our  immersionist 
friends  to  their  own  rule,  that  words  must  be  taken  in 
their  first  or  primary  meaning.  Here  a  Syrian  general 
comes  to  a  Hebrew  prophet  to  be  cured  of  leprosy.     The 


102       TJie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

prophet  says:  "Go  wash  seven  times  in  Jordan."  In 
Hebrew  rachats,  translated  in  Greek  by  lousai.  Both 
words  are  generic,  and  not  specific,  meaning  "to  wash" 
in  a  general  sense,  not  ''to  dip.'*  The  word  louo  is  used  to 
express  the  washing  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  in  their  conse- 
cration at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle.  Exodus  xxix.  4: 
"And  Aaron  and  his  sons  thou  shalt  bring  to  the  door  of 
the  Tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  thou  shalt  wash 
[louseis]  them  with  water."  In  Leviticus  viii.  6  we  read: 
"And  Moses  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  washed 
[elousen  autois  hudatt]  them  with  water."  Here  louo  can- 
not mean  immerse,  nor  even  a  general  washing  of  the 
body,  for  this  was  done  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  in  the  presence  of  all  the  people.  (Le- 
viticus viii.  1-6.)  It  was  a  washing  of  their  hands  and 
feet,  and  a  sprinkling  of  their  garments.  Now  turn  to 
the  law  of  cleansing  from  leprosy  (Leviticus  xiv.  1-7), 
and  we  will  see  that  it  was  required  that  the  leper  should 
be  sprinkled  seven  times.  The  sprinkling  was  the  es- 
sential part  of  the  cleansing.  "And  thou  shalt  sprinkle 
upon  him  that  is  to  be  cleansed  from  the  leprosy  seven 
times,  and  thou  shalt  pronounce  him  clean."  After  he 
was  thus  sprinkled  seven  times,  and  pronounced  clean,  he 
was  to  shave  off  all  his  hair,  and  wash  his  clothes,  and 
wash  his  body  with  water.  In  verse  8,  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  it  reads,  " Kal  Xovo-crat  ev  tJSart "  {"kai  lousetai  en  huda- 
ti"),  "and  shall  wash  with  water."  The  ev  (en)  is  used 
with  the  dative  of  the  instrument,  and  it  is  properly 
translated  "with."  Our  common  translation  reads,  "and 
wash  himself  in  water."  The  pronoun  "himself"  is  not 
in  the  Greek,  and  en  hudati  is  not  "m  water,"  but  ''with 
water."  This  is  clearly  shown  in  the  next  verse,  which, 
in  our  common  version,  reads,  "also  he  shall  wash  his 
flesh  in  water" ;  but  the  Greek  reads,  "  koI  Aovcrerat  t6  o-w/xa 


Tie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       103 

avTovvSart"  ("kai  lousetai  to  sooma  autou  hudati"),  "and 
shall  wash  his  body  with  water."  The  simple  dative 
hudati  cannot  properly  be  translated  "in  waTKR,"  but 
must  be  translated  "with  waTe:r."  Verse  9  is  speaking 
of  the  same  thing  as  verse  8,  and  shows  that  in  the 
cleansing  of  the  leper  there  was  no  dipping,  or  immersion, 
or  washing  "m  water'' ;  but  simply  a  washing  of  the  body 
"with  water,"  according  to  the  Jewish  method,  by 
pouring  the  water  over  the  body. 

1.  There  was  no  command  for  Naaman  to  dip  or  im- 
merse himself.  No  Hebrew  prophet  would  have  ever 
given  such  a  command,  under  such  circumstances. 

2.  The  law  commanded  the  leper  to  be  sprinkled 
seven  times.  Rachats,  in  Hebrew,  and  louo,  in  Greek, 
in  ceremonial  washing  or  cleansing,  often  mean  "to 
sprinkle,"  or  wash,  or  cleanse  by  sprinkling. 

3.  Naaman  obeyed  the  prophet,  and  went  and  bap- 
tized himself  seven  times  in  Jordan ;  that  is,  he  took  of  the 
waters^'of  the  Jordan  and  purified  himself  seven  times, 
according  to  the  word  of  the  prophet,  and  he  was  healed. 

Our  immersionist  friends  depend  solely  on  what  they 
claim  to  be  the  exclusive  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word 
tabal  and  the  Greek  word  baptidzo,  which  they  claim 
always  mean  "to  immerse,"  to  get  immersion  in  this  case. 
But,  as  we  have  shown  from  the  highest  authority  that 
these  words  do  not  necessarily  mean  "to  immerse" — 
that  tabal  primarily  means  "to  moisten"  or  "besprinkle," 
and  that  baptidzo  at  the  time  the  Septuagint  was  trans- 
lated was  applied  by  the  Jews  to  all  their  various  purifica- 
tions, which  were  usually  done  by  sprinkling  and  never 
by  immersion — ^we  have  taken  the  foundation  from  under 
their  argment,  and  have  thus  taken  this  passage  from 
them;  the  only  passage  from  the  Septuagint,  the  Apoc- 
rypha, and  the  New  Testament,  where  baptidzo  or  bap- 


I04       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

tismos  are  used  not  with  reference  to  John's  baptism  or 
the  Christian  ordinance,  which  they  can  claim  with  any 
semblance  of  reason. 

The  next  example  of  the  use  of  haptidzo  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  is  found  in  the  book  of  Judith,  xii.  7,  where  she 
is  said  to  have  baptized  herself  in  the  camp,  at  the  fountain 
of  water.     The  passage  reads : 

**  Koi  Trapificivev  iv  rrj  Trapefx/Sokr]  7;/xcpa5  rpet^^  kol  c^ctto- 
pevero  ^ara  vv)(Ta  ets  rrjv  cfxipayya  ySeTvXouaj  kol  eBaTTTigero  iv 
T^  TrapepL/SoXy]  iirl  ttjs  Tr-qyr]';  tov  vSaros." 

"And  she  abode  in  the  camp  three  days,  and  went 
out  in  the  middle  of  the  night  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia, 
and  purified  (baptized)  herself  in  the  camp,  at  the  fountain 
of  water." 

Here  immersion  is  wholly  out  of  the  question.  The 
language  forbids  it  and  the  circumstances  forbid  it.  Let 
us  examine  the  case  carefully. 

1.  She  baptized  herself  AT  (cTrt,  epi),  not  in,  the 
fountain  of  water.  The  preposition  epi  here  forbids  the 
idea  of  immersion. 

2.  The  place  forbids  immersion.  She  could  not  and 
would  not  have  immersed  herself  in  a  fountain  or  spring 
of  water  which  was  used  to  supply  the  camp  with  water 
for  drinking  and  cooking.  ^ 

3.  The  baptism  took  place  in  the  camp.  The  enemy 
were  encamped  in  the  valley  all  about  the  spring  or 
fountain,  and  were  coming  to  it  at  all  times  for  water; 
and  the  guards  were  patrolling  the  camp  at  all  times  of 
the  night,  and  had  orders  not  to  molest  her  in  her  devo- 
tions. Under  such  circumstances  she  would  not  have 
disrobed  herself  in  so  public  a  place,  and  she  could  not, 
with  safety  to  her  health,  have  immersed  herself  with  her 
clothes  on.  This  baptism  was  repeated  for  three  suc- 
cessive nights. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,       105 

4.  It  was  a  purification  preparatory  for  prayer,  and 
was  performed  by  washing  the  hands,  and  sprinkling  the 
running  water  on  the  clothes.  This  was  a  custom  among 
all  nations  preparatory  to  prayer  or  religious  service  or 
devotion.  We  know  that  the  Jews  built  their  proseucheus 
(houses  of  prayer)  at  the  seaside,  or  by  rivers  or  streams 
of  running  water,  at  which  they  could  wash  their  hands 
and  sprinkle  themselves  before  prayer. 

Josephus  tells  us  that  Ptolemy  prepared  a  place  for 
the  seventy  translators  of  the  Septuagint,  "which  was  in 
a  house  near  the  shore."  And  he  tells  us  that  every 
"morning  they  came  to  the  court  and  saluted  Ptolemy, 
and  then  went  away  to  their  former  place,  where,  when 
they  had  washed  their  hands  and  purified  themselves,  they 
betook  themselves  to  the  interpretation  of  the  laws." 
("Antiquities,"  Book  XII.,  Chapter  II.,  Section  13.) 

Again,  in  the  decrees  of  those  of  Halicarnassus  we 
read:  "We  have  decreed,  that  as  many  men  and  women 
of  the  Jews  as  are  willing  so  to  do  may  celebrate  their 
Sabbaths,  and  perform  their  holy  offices  according  to  the 
Jewish  laws,  and  make  their  proseuchea  at  the  seaside, 
according  to  the  customs  of  their  forefathers."  ("An- 
tiquities," Book  XIV.,  Chapter  X.,  Section  23.) 

Clement  of  Alexandria  refers  to  this  custom  of  purifi- 
cation before  going  to  prayer  among  all  nations,  thus: 
"That  may  be  an  image  or  picture  of  baptism  which  was 
handed  down  from  Moses  to  the  poets,  thus:  Penelope, 
having  washed,  and  having  on  clean  garments,  sprinkled 
(hudranamene) ,  goes  to  prayer;  and  Telemachus,  having 
washed  his  hands  at  the  hoary  sea,  prayed  to  Athena." 

Here  we  have  these  purifications  or  baptisms,  pre- 
paratory to  prayer,  by  washing  the  hands  and  sprinkling 
the  garments.  In  the  case  of  Penelope,  we  have  both 
washing  and  sprinkling;  louoo,  "to  wash,"  and  hudrainoo, 


io6       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

"to  sprinkle."  Penelope  both  washed  and  sprinkled. 
She  did  not  immerse,  for  louoo  does  not  mean  "to  im- 
merse"; she  washed  her  hands,  and  probably  her  face, 
and  sprinkled  her  garments.  Telemachus  only  ''washed 
his  hands."  But  they  both  baptized  themselves  before 
going  to  prayer. 

This,  we  see  from  the  examples  cited  from  Josephus, 
was  a  common  practice  among  the  Jews.  This  was  prob- 
ably taken  from  the  law  requiring  the  priests,  when  they 
entered  the  Tabernacle,  or  afterwards  the  Temple,  to 
perform  their  priestly  functions,  to  wash  their  hands  and 
their  feet,  or,  as  Josephus  puts  it  (and  he  was  himself 
a  priest  and  knew  what  the  law  and  custom  was),  'Ho 
wash  their  hands  and  sprinkle  their  feet.''  ("Antiquities," 
Book  III.,  Chapter  VI.,  Section  2.)  So  Judith,  according 
to  this  custom,  went  out  into  the  valley  to  the  fountain, 
and  washed  her  hands  and  sprinkled  the  purifying  element 
upon  her  garments,  preparatory  to  going  to  prayer. 

The  only  reliance  of  our  immersionist  friends  to  make 
an  immersion  out  of  this  case  is  "the  force  and  meaning 
of  baptidzo,"  which  they  claim  always  means  "to  dip  or 
immerse,"  and  consequently  it  must  mean  "to  immerse" 
here,  and  they  immerse  Judith  by  the  force  and  meaning 
of  hapiidzo!  But  we  have  shown  the  utter  fallacy  of  this 
position,  and  consequently  it  cannot  help  them  out  in 
this  case. 

Some  over-zealous  immersionists  have  gone  so  far, 
in  their  eager  desire  to  furnish  Judith  the  facilities  for  im- 
mersion, that  in  their  imagination  they  have  constructed 
a  large  stone  horse-trough,  big  enough  for  her  to  roll  her- 
self into,  and  thus  immerse  herself!  The  imagination  of 
our  immersionist  friends  is  exceedingly  fruitful,  when  it 
comes  to  furnishing  facilities  for  immersion  where  none 
exist;  but  we  must  remind  them  that  Judith,  a  Jewess, 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       107 

would  have  seriously  objected  to  rolling  herself  in  a  pol- 
luted horse-trough  to  purify  herself  for  prayer.  The  case 
of  Judith  must  be  given  up  by  the  immersionists ;  it '-is 
squarely  against  them. 

The  next  example  from  the  Septuagint  we  take  from 
The  Wisdom  of  Sirach,  xxxiv.  40,  which  reads: 

"  /3a7rTt|d/x€i/os  airo  v€)(pov  koI  Trakiv  aTrro/xcvos  avToO  Tt 
(i)cf)eXr](Tev  tu)  Xovrpo)  avrov?  " 

"He  that  is  baptized  from  a  dead  body,  and  toucheth 
it  again,  what  profiteth  his  washing?"  Dr.  Conant  trans- 
lates this  passage:  "Immersing  (baptizing)  himself  from 
a  dead  body,  and  touching  it  again,  what  is  he  profited 
by  his  bathing?" 

But,  unfortunately  for  Dr.  Conant  and  our  immer- 
sionist  friends,  there  was  no  immersion,  nor  even  bathing, 
in  the  purifying  or  baptizing  from  a  dead  body.  Let  us 
examine  the  law  in  regard  to  the  purification  from  a  dead 
body.  The  law  concerning  the  water  of  separation,  and 
its  use  in  purifying  from  the  dead,  is  found  in  Numbers 
xix.  11-20: 

"He  that  toucheth  the  dead  body  of  any  man  shall 
be  unclean  seven  days.  He  shall  purify  himself  with  it 
on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  be  clean : 
but  if  he  purify  not  himself  the  third  day,  then  the  seventh 
day  he  shall  not  be  clean.  Whosoever  toucheth  the  dead 
body  of  any  man  that  is  dead,  and  purifieth  not  himself, 
defileth  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord ;  and  that  soul  shall  be 
cut  off  from  Israel:  because  the  water  of  separation  was 
not  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  shall  be  unclean;  his  unclean- 
ness  is  yet  upon  him.  This  is  the  law,  when  a  man  dieth 
in  a  tent:  all  that  come  into  the  tent,  and  all  that  is  in  the 
tent,  shall  be  unclean  seven  days.  And  every  open  vessel, 
which  hath  no  covering  bound  upon  it,  is  unclean.  And 
whosoever  toucheth  one  that  is  slain  with  a  sword  in  the 


io8       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

open  fields,  or  a  dead  body,  or  a  bone  of  a  man,  or  a  grave, 
shall  be  unclean  seven  days.  And  for  an  unclean  person 
they  shall  take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  of  purifica. 
tion  for  sin,  and  running  water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a 
vessel:  and  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it 
in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,  and  upon  all 
the  vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that  were  there,  and 
upon  him  that  touched  a  bone,  or  one  slain,  or  one  dead, 
or  a  grave :  and  the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle  upon  the 
unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day :  and  on 
the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himself,  and  wash  his 
clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  shall  be  clean  at 
even.  But  the  man  that  shall  be  unclean,  and  shall  not 
purify  himself,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  the 
congregation,  because  he  hath  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  the 
Lord:  the  water  of  separation  hath  not  been  sprinkled 
upon  him;  he  is  unclean." 

The  entire  process  of  the  baptism  or  purification 
from  a  dead  body  is  here  given,  and  it  consists  simply  of 
sprinkling  the  water  of  separation  upon  the  unclean 
person  on  "the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day,  and  he 
shall  be  clean."  There  is  no  washing  of  his  clothes,  nor 
bathing  of  his  "flesh  in  water."  He  is  simply  ''sprinkled 
on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day,"  and  he  is 
clean.  In  verses  13  and  20  we  have  these  words:  "But 
the  man  that  shall  be  unclean,  and  shall  not  purify  him- 
self, that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  the  congrega- 
tion, because  he  hath  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord: 

THE  WATER  OF  SEPARATION  HATH   NOT  BEEN    SPRINKI^ED 

UPON  him:  he  is  unclean." 

But  the  question  is  asked,  "Does  not  verse  19  say, 
'And  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himself,  and 
shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  shall  bathe  himself  in  water, 
and  shall  be  clean  at  even'?"     Yes;  but  who  was  it  that 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       109 

was  to  "wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water"? 
Was  it  the  man  who  had  the  water  of  separation  sprinkled 
upon  him?  or  was  it  the  man  who  sprinkled  the  water  of 
separation?  The  connection  and  the  law  both  clearly 
prove  that  it  was  the  man  who  sprinkled  the  water  of 
separation,  and  not  the  person  or  persons  upon  whom  it 
was  sprinkled  that  had  to  "wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe 
himself  in  water." 

In  verses  18  and  19  we  read:  "And  a  clean  person 
shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it 
upon  the  tent,  and  upon  all  the  vessels,  and  upon  all  the 
persons  that  were  there,  and  upon  him  that  touched  a 
bone,  or  a  grave.  And  the  clean  person  shall  sprinkle 
upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh 
day ;  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himsklF, 

AND  WASH  HIS  CLOTHES,  AND  BATHE  HIMSELF  IN  WATER, 

AND  SHALL  BE  CLEAN  AT  EVEN."  The  language  here  fixes 
the  meaning  of  this  verse,  and  limits  the  washing  of 
clothes,  and  bathing  himself,  to  the  man  who  sprinkled 
the  water  of  separation.  The  reader  will  notice  that  the 
tent  and  all  its  furniture  and  all  the  persons  in  it  were 
sprinkled;  but  the  "washing  of  his  clothes"  and  "bathing 
of  his  flesh"  were    limited  to  one  person:     "he  shall 

WASH  HIS  CLOTHES,  AND  BATHE  HIMSELF  IN  WATER." 

In  addition  to  this,  in  verses  6,  7,  and  8  we  read: 
"And  the  priest  shall  take  cedar  wood,  and  hyssop,  and 
scarlet,  and  cast  it  into  the  midst  of  the  burning  of  the 
heifer.  Then  the  priest  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  he 
shall  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,  and  afterward  he  shall  come 
into  the  camp,  and  the  priest  shall  be  unclean  until  the 
even.  And  he  that  burneth  her  shall  wash  his  clothes  in 
water,  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,  and  shall  be  unclean 
until  the  even."  In  verse  21  we  read:  "And  it  shall  be 
a  perpetual  statute  unto  them,  that  he  that  sprinklETh 


no       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

TH^  WATER  OF  SEPARATION  SHAI^I^  WASH  HIS  CLOTHES; 

and  he  that  toucheth  the  water  of  separation  shall  be  un- 
clean until  even."  This  fully  settles  the  matter,  and 
shows  that  the  person  or  persons  upon  whom  the  water  of 
separation  was  sprinkled  were  not  required  to  wash  their 
clothes  or  bathe  their  flesh  in  water ;  but  this  requirement 
was  limited  to  the  man  who  sprinkled  the  water  of 
separation. 

This  is  confirmed  by  Paul  in  Hebrews  ix.  13,  where 
he  says :     ' '  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the 

ASHES  OF  AN  heifer  SPRINKLING  THE  UNCLEAN,  SANCTI- 

FiETH  TO  THE  PURIFYING  OF  THE  FLESH."  Here  the  sim- 
ple sprinkling  of  the  water  of  separation  accomplished  the 
purification,  and  no  washing  of  clothes  or  bathing  of  the 
flesh  in  water  was  necessary  to  complete  the  purification. 
But  if  our  immersionist  friends  could  prove  that  the 
man  upon  whom  the  water  of  separation  was  sprinkled 
had  to  wash  his  clothes  and  bathe  his  flesh  in  water  in 
order  to  complete  his  purification,  which  they  cannot, 
still  they  could  not  get  immersion  in  this  case ;  for  in 
the  Septuagint,  where  in  our  translation  it  reads,  "and 
shall  bathe  his  flesh  in  water,"  it  is  'Vat  Xovcrerai  vSari" 
("kai  lousetai  hudati*'),  the  simple  dative  hudati,  "and 
shall  wash  with  water."  Neither  ''body,"  nor  "flesh,"  nor 
"himself,"  nor  "bathe"  is  in  the  Greek  text.  It  is  simply, 
''and  shall  wash  with  water."  The  Jews  never  plunged 
or  immersed  themselves  in  water  to  wash  or  bathe,  unless 
it  was  in  the  sea  or  a  large  pool  or  running  stream ;  but 
they  washed  or  bathed  by  pouring  water  over  their  bodies. 
If  they  had  not  running  water  to  bathe  in,  they  made  it 
run  by  pouring  it  on  their  hands  or  person.  So,  whoever 
it  was  that  washed  his  clothes  and  washed  himself,  there 
was  no  immersion;  for  the  washing  was  with  (lousetai 
hudati),  not  in  water. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 


III 


Again,  if  baptidzo  in  this  case  doesn't  mean  simple 
sprinkling,  but  a  general  washing,  it  includes  sprinkling, 
and  thus  becomes  a  word  of  denomination,  and  not  a 
word  of  mode.  So,  whatever  view  we  may  take  of  it, 
it  cannot  mean  "immerse"  in  this  case.  But  we  have 
proved  conclusively  that  it  means  simply  "to  sprinkle;' 
and  that  the  "baptism  from  a  dead  body"  was  a  baptism 
by  sprinkling,  and  by  sprinkling  alone. 

Dr.  Conant  had  no  authority  whatever  for  trans- 
lating this  passage,  ''Immersing  himself  from  a  dead 
body" ;  for  the  law  of  cleansing  from  a  dead  body  and  all 
the  facts  in  the  case  are  against  him. 

Another  thing  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  in  this  case  is,  that  the  sprinkling  of  the  water 
of  separation  is  called  a  washing!  Baptize,  wash,  and 
sprinkle  are  all  used  to  express  the  same  thing— the 
purifying  from  a  dead  body.  But  we  will  bring  this  out 
more  fully  in  another  chapter. 

New  Testament  Usage, 

The  first  example  we  will  cite  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  Hebrews  ix.  1-2:  "Which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks,  and  divers  washings  [Greek,  baptismois],  and 
carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of 
reformation." 

*'8ta<^opots  /SaTTTio-^oZs "  {"Diaphorois  baptismois"). 
Here  it  is  affirmed  that  there  were  "divers  baptisms  under 
the  law  of  Moses.  All  the  purifications  under  the  law  of 
Moses,  whether  by  blood  or  water,  or  a  mixture  of  both 
blood  and  water,  are  here  called  baptisms.  It  is  a  fact 
that  while  there  were  "divers  baptisms"  enjoined  by  the 

law,   THBRK  WAS  NOT  ONB   SINGI^B  PBRSONAI.  IMMERSION 

ENJOINED  BY  THE  LAW  OF  MosES.     In  debating  with  some 
of  the  ablest  immersionists  in  the  West,  I  have  time  and 


112       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

again  demanded  of  them  to  give  me  one  single  personal 
immersion  required,  or  enjoined  by  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
no  man  has  ever  produced  a  single  case.  The  nearest 
they  have  ever  come  to  finding  a  case  of  immersion  is 
where  in  our  translation  we  have,  "shall  bathe  himself" 
or  "his  flesh  in  water."  But  hathe  is  not  immerse.  It  is 
a  generic,  and  not  a  specific  term.  In  Hebrew  the  word 
translated  "bathe"  is  rachats,  which  means  to  wash  in  a 
general  sense,  and  not  to  dip;  and  in  the  Greek  it  is  louoo, 
to  wash  in  a  general  sense.  In  nearly  all  the  examples 
where  we  have,  in  our  translation,  ''bathe  his  flesh  in 
water,"  in  the  Greek  it  is  the  simple  dative,  "lousetai 
hudati,"  ''wash  with  water,"  as  in  Leviticus  xv.  5,  6,  7, 
8,  10,  II,  13,  16,  18,  21,  22,  27;  xvi.  4,  24,  26,  28;xvii. 
15,  16.  Lousetai  hudati  is  not  "immerse,"  nor  can  it  be 
tortured  into  any  such  meaning.  It  is  simply  "wash 
WITH  water";  the  water  is  applied  to  the  body,  and  not 
the  body  to  the  water.  The  baptisms  of  blood  were  al- 
ways by  simple  sprinkling.  The  baptism  from  a  dead 
body  was  simple  sprinkling.  Every  baptism  or  purifica- 
tion performed  by  a  priest  was  by  simple  sprinkling; 
whether  it  was  the  baptism  or  purification  of  a  leper  or  a 
leprous  house,  or  any  other  purification  of  an  unclean 
person  or  thing,  it  was  never  touched  by  the  priest,  or  he 
would  have  become  unclean. 

Paul  declares  that  baptism  was  practiced  from  Moses 
to  Christ ;  that  the  law  was  made  up  largely  of  these  bap- 
tisms, and  they  were  performed  by  sprinkling!  In 
Hebrews  ix.  13-14  he  says:  "For  if  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  un- 
clean, sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh:  how  much 
more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal 
Spirit  offered  Himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your 
conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God?" 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       113 

Two  things  are  here  affirmed  by  Paul:  i.  That 
there  were  divers  (many)  baptisms  practiced  under  the 
law.  2.  That  these  baptisms  were  performed  by  sprink- 
ling! This  surely  ought  to  settle  the  question  of  the 
meaning  of  haptidzo  in  the  New  Testament.  Here  the 
argument  is  absolutely  conclusive,  and  there  is  no  pos- 
sibility of  escape.  Baptismos,  as  used  by  Paul  in  He- 
brews ix.  10,  means  "to  sprinkle:,"  and  nothing  else,  as 
defined  by  Paul  himself.  Now  turn  to  Dr.  Hinton's  posi- 
tion on  the  use  of  this  word  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
see  if  it  does  not  settle  the  controversy. 

2.  Our  second  example  of  the  use  of  haptidzo  in  the 
New  Testament  is  First  Corinthians  x.  1-2:  "Moreover, 
brethren,  I  would  not  that  you  should  be  ignorant,  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea ;  and  were  all  baptized  Unto  Moses  in  the 
cloud  and  in  the  sea." 

Here  was  a  literal  baptism  by  the  Almighty,  a  bap- 
tism with  water,  and  a  baptism  by  sprinkling  !  The 
preposition  ev  {en)  here  should  have  been  translated  '  'by," 
as  it  is  dative  of  instrument.  The  Israelites  were  not 
in  the  cloud  when  they  were  baptized,  but  were  under 
it,  as  Paul  expressly  states,  and  hence  they  could  not 
have  been  baptized  in  it.  They  were  neither  "plunged" 
in  the  sea  nor  "overwhelmed"  by  it.  They  passed 
through  it  "on  dry  ground";  hence  they  were  not  im- 
mersed ''in  the  sea''\  The  cloud  and  the  sea  were  the  in- 
struments which  God  used  in  baptizing  them.  They 
were  baptized,  but  they  were  not  immersed,  neither  were 
they  overwhelmed.  The  Egyptians  were  immersed — that 
is,  they  were  overwhelmed,  but  they  were  not  baptized ! 
Here  we  can  see  the  difference  between  baptism  and 
immersion. 


114       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

When  I  was  a  boy  of  perhaps  twelve  or  fourteen 
years  of  age,  I  heard  a  Baptist  preacher  preach  a  sermon 
on  "Baptism,"  and  he  undertook  to  make  this  a  case  of 
immersion!  He  took  three  books,  and  set  two  of  them 
up  on  their  edges,  and  laid  the  third  on  top  of  them, 
making  a  tunnel,  and  tunneled  the  children  of  Israel 
through  it,  and  thus  immersed  them  in  figure !  I  wanted 
to  help  him  out  a  little  by  telling  him  that  it  was  only 
half  a  dip,  and  that  he  would  not  accept  that  as  baptism, 
for  I  had  seen  the  pastor  of  that  church,  only  a  short  time 
before  that,  baptize  a  young  lady,  and  he  did  not  get  her 
head  under  the  first  dip,  and  he  dipped  her  again,  so  as  to 
make  it  a  proper  baptism !  But  here,  by  his  own  showing, 
there  was  no  water  before  nor  behind  nor  underneath 
them,  and  consequently  there  was  no  immersion  in  the 
case.  I  wanted  to  help  him  out  in  another  respect,  and 
show  that  the  cloud  was  not  over  the  children  of  Israel 
while  they  were  passing  through  the  sea,  but  behind  them, 
between  them  and  the  Egyptians.  But  I  was  only  a  boy, 
and  I  had  to  keep  still ;  but  I  kept  up  a  mighty  thinking, 
and  he  failed  to  convince  me  by  a  long  way. 

When  I  preached  my  first  sermon  on  "Baptism,"  in 
the  spring  of  1853,  i^  the  old  Court-house,  in  Rolla,  111., 
I  referred  to  that  sermon,  and  showed  how  he  illustrated 
it.  I  showed  that  no  such  tunnel  existed,  except  in  the 
preacher's  imagination;  that  the  cloud  was  not  over 
them  as  they  passed  through  the  Red  Sea,  but  behind 
them,  between  them  and  the  Egyptians;  and  "the  Lord 
drove  back  the  sea  by  a  strong  east  wind,  all  that  night." 
As  I  was  eating  dinner  a  good  old  Hardshell  Baptist 
brother  came  over  to  where  I  was  stopping;  and  after  I 
was  through  dinner,  I  stepped  into  the  room  where  he  was 
sitting,  and  he  said  to  me:  "Young  man,  you  made  a 
mistake  to-day  in  your  sermon."     I  said  to  him:     "What 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       115 

about?"  He  replied:  "You  said  that  the  east  wind 
drove  the  sea  back.  That  is  not  true ;  the  power  of  God 
drove  it  back."  I  repHed:  "That  is  true;  but  the  Lord 
used  the  east  wind  as  the  instrument  of  His  power."  He 
repHed :  "It  does  not  say  anything  about  the  east  wind." 
I  said:  "Let  us  get  the  Bible  and  see."  I  turned  to 
Exodus  xiv.  19-22,  and  read:  "And  the  angel  of  God 
which  went  before  the  camp  of  Israel,  removed  and  went 
behind  them ;  and  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  went  from  before 
their  face,  and  stood  behind  them :  and  it  came  between 
the  camp  of  the  Egyptians  and  the  camp  of  Israel ;  and  it 
was  a  cloud  and  darkness  to  them,  but  it  gave  light  by 
night  to  these:  so  that  the  one  came  not  near  the  other 
all  the  night.  And  Moses  stretched  out  his  hand  over  the 
sea;  and  the  Lord  caused  the  sea  to  go  back  by  a  strong 
east  wind  all  that  night,  and  made  the  sea  dry  land,  and 
the  waters  were  divided.  And  the  children  of  Israel  went 
into  the  midst  of  the  sea  upon  the  dry  ground:  and  the 
waters  were  a  wall  unto  them  on  their  right  hand,  and  on 
their  left."  The  old  gentleman  drew  on  his  glasses  and 
said:  "Let  me  see  that."  He  read  it  carefully,  so  as  to 
be  sure  it  was  there.  Then  he  turned  to  the  title-page  to 
see  if  it  was  the  right  Bible.  Then  he  handed  it  back  to 
me,  and  said:  "Is  not  that  strange!  I  have  read  that  I 
reckon  twenty  times,  but  never  saw  it  that  way  before." 
I  give  this  case  to  show  how  a  preconceived  opinion  or 
prejudice  can  blind  the  eyes  and  minds  of  good  men,  so 
that  they  cannot  see  the  plainest  statements  of  God's 
Word. 

But  how  were  the  Israelites  baptized?  We  have 
seen  they  were  not  immersed.  God's  Word  tells  us  how 
this  baptism  was  performed. 

In  Psalm  Ixviii.  7-10  we  read:  "O  God,  when  Thou 
wentest  forth  before  thy  people,  when  Thou  didst  march 


ii6       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

through  the  wilderness:  the  earth  shook,  the  heavens  also 
dropped  at  the  presence  of  God:  even  Sinai  itself  was 
moved  at  the  presence  of  God,  the  God  of  Israel.  Thou, 
O  God,  didst  send  a  plentiful  rain,  whereby  Thou  didst 
confirm  Thine  inheritance,  when  it  was  weary.  Thy  con- 
gregation hath  dwelt  therein." 

What  the  Psalmist  here  calls  a  confirmation  of 
Israel,  "the  inheritance  and  congregation  of  the  Lord," 
Paul  calls  a  "baptism  unto  Moses,"  an  initiation  into  the 
Mosaic  covenant.  This  confirmation,  this  baptism,  was 
accomplished  by  "the  plentiful  rain"  which  God  sent 
upon  them.     Here  we  have  the  baptism  by  the  cloud. 

In  Psalm  Ixxvii.  14-20  we  read:  "Thou  art  the  God 
that  doest  wonders :  Thou  hast  declared  Thy  strength 
among  the  people.  Thou  hast  with  Thine  arm  redeemed 
Thy  people,  the  sons  of  Jacob  and  Joseph.  The  waters 
saw  Thee,  O  God,  the  waters  saw  Thee ;  they  were  afraid : 
the  depths  also  were  troubled.  The  clouds  poured  out 
water :  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound :  Thine  arrows  also  went 
abroad.  The  voice  of  Thy  thunder  was  in  the  heaven: 
the  lightnings  lightened  the  world:  the  earth  trembled 
and  shook.  Thy  way  is  in  the  sea,  and  Thy  path  in  the 
great  waters,  and  Thy  footsteps  are  not  known.  Thou 
leddest  Thy  people  like  a  flock  by  the  hand  of  Moses 
and  Aaron." 

Here  we  have  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  described, 
and  it  is  expressly  declared:  "The  clouds  pourKd  out 
water."  The  baptism  by  the  cloud  was  by  the  down- 
pour of  rain  upon  the  hosts  of  Israel  as  they  passed 
through  the  sea.  Josephus  speaks  of  the  storm  and  rain 
during  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  that  the  Psalmist  here 
describes.  He  says:  "Showers  of  rain  also  came  down 
from  the  sky,  and  dreadful  thunder  and  lightning  with 
flashes  of  fire."     ("Antiquities  of  the  Jews,"  Book  II., 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       117 

Chapter  XVI.,  Section  3.)  How  was  the  baptism  of  the 
sea  performed?  It  was  not  by  immersion;  that  is  cer- 
tain. There  is  but  one  possible  way  for  it  to  have  been 
done,  and  that  was  by  the  spray  carried  by  the  wind  and 
SPRINKLED  upon  the  hosts  of  Israel  as  they  passed  over  on 
dry  ground.  No  doubt  this  was  done,  for  it  would  be  but 
the  natural  and  necessary  effect  of  the  wind  on  the  waters- 
of  the  sea.  Here  again  the  argument  is  conclusive: 
Baptidzo,  as  used  by  Paul,  means  to  sprinklK,  as  the 
spray,  or  to  sprinklK  or  pour,  as  the  rain  from  the  clouds. 
In  February,  1866,  I  had  a  debate  with  Rev.  J.  K 
Speer,  who  up  to  that  time  had  been  a  prominent  debater 
of  the  Disciple  or  Campbellite  Church.  I  presented  the 
foregoing  argument  in  that  debate.  About  thirty  years 
afterward  he  called  on  me  in  Springfield,  Mo.  In  the 
conversation  reference  was  made  to  that  debate,  when  he 
remarked:  "That  was  the  last  debate  I  ever  had.  You 
advanced  one  argument  in  that  debate  I  could  not  answer. 
I  tried,  but  knew  I  failed.  I  made  my  brethren  believe  I 
had  answered  you  when  I  knew  I  had  not;  and  I  could 
not  stand  that  sort  of  dishonesty,  and  I  have  never  had 
another  debate  from  that  day  to  this."  I  was  curious  to 
know  what  argument  I  had  advanced  that  he  knew  he 
could  not  and  did  not  answer.  I  knew  of  a  good  many 
arguments  I  had  advanced  that  he  did  not  and  could  not 
answer,  but  I  wanted  to  know  what  one  he  knew  he  did 
not  and  could  not  answer.  So  I  asked  him ;  and  he  re- 
plied: "Your  argument  from  the  tenth  chapter  of  First 
Corinthians.  You  said:  'Here  God  baptized  a  whole 
nation,  babies  and  all,  and  did  it  by  sprinkling'!"  He 
was  an  honest  man,  and  knowing  this  argument  could 
not  be  answered,  he  gracefully  retired  from  the  field.  I 
have  no  better  friend  to-day  than  Rev.  J.  K.  Speer, 


ii8       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

3.  Our  next  example  is  Luke  xi.  38:  "And  when 
the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marveled  that  He  had  not  first 
washed  [tj^airTLdOr]  (ebaptisthe)  ]  before  dinner." 

Collate  this  passage  with  Mark  vii.  3:  "For  the 
Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands 
oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders." 

In  Mark  vii.  3  and  Luke  xi.  38  the  same  thing  is 
spoken  of  —  washing  before  eating.  In  Mark  vLxj/iDvrai 
(nipsoontai)  is  used,  which  means  "to  wash  the  hands." 
In  Luke  ebaptisthe  is  used;  yet  the  same  identical  thing 
is  meant — the  washing  before  eating.  Washing  of  the 
hands  is  here  called  "baptizing  the  person."  "He  did 
not  baptize  Himself  before  dinner,"  for  He  did  not 
"wash"  His  hands!  The  baptizing  omitted  by  the 
Savior  was  the  customary  washing  of  the  Jews  before 
eating.  This  we  know  was  not  immersion,  for  Mark 
specifically  tells  us  it  was  done  by  washing  the  hands! 

A  passage  from  CIvBmenT  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  190, 
throws  light  on  this  passage.  He  says :  '  'That  may  be  an 
image  or  picture  of  baptism  which  has  been  handed  down 
from  Moses  to  the  poets  thus :  .  .  .  .  'And  Telema- 
chus,  having  washed  his  hands  at  the  hoary  sea,  prayed 
to  Athena.'  This  was  a  custom  of  the  Jews,  to  baptize 
themselves  in  this  manner  often  upon  a  couch."  Haas, 
"in  this  manner";  as  Telemachus  baptized  himself,  "by 
washing  his  hands."  Whatever  the  nature  of  the  bap- 
tism here  spoken  of,  it  was  performed  as  Telemachus  bap- 
tized himself,  and  was  done  by  washing  the  hands. 
Pollakis  shows  that  it  was  a  baptism  that  was  oft  re- 
peated. The  epi  koitee,  "upon  a  couch,"  shows  that  it 
was  done  while  reclining  upon  the  couch.  We  will  ex- 
amine this  passage  more  at  length,  and  meet  the  objec- 
tions of  immersionists  to  our  rendering,  in  another  place. 
But  we  have  given  its  proper  rendering  here,  which  we 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       119 

will  show  fully  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  Patristic 
use  of  haptidzo. 

We  ask,  Was  it  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  baptize 
themselves  often  upon  the  couch?  Mark  says  it  was  their 
custom  to  wash  their  hands  before  eating;  and  we  know 
from  other  writers  that  they  washed  their  hands  often, 
while  and  after  eating. 

ThkodorKT  was  born  A.  D.  387,  and  died  A.  D.  450. 
On  page  55  of  his  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  speaking  of 
the  Empress  Helena,  the  mother  of  Constantine  the  Great, 
he  says:  "This  celebrated  and  admirable  empress  per- 
formed another  action  worthy  to  be  remembered :  she  as- 
sembled a  number  of  young  women  who  had  vowed  per- 
petual virginity,  and  made  them  recline  on  couches,  while 
she  presented  them  with  meat  and  with  a  beverage  mixed 
with  wine,  and  waited  upon  them;  she  then  brought 
them  water  to  wash  their  hands."  This  took  place  in 
Jerusalem. 

SozoMEN,  in  his  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  page  52, 
speaking  of  the  same  thing,  says:  "During  her  residence 
in  Jerusalem,  she  assembled  the  sacred  virgins  at  a  feast, 
ministered  to  them  at  supper,  presented  them  with  food, 
POURED  WATER  ON  THEIR  HANDS,  and  performed  other 
similar  services  customary  on  such  occasions." 

Here  Sozomen  affirms  it  was  customary  in  Jerusalem 
to  POUR  WATER  ON  THEIR  HANDS  while  reclining  on  the 
couch  at  their  meals,  and  Clement  says  it  was  a  custom 
of  the  Jews  to  "baptize  themselves  in  This  manner  [by 
washing  their  hands]  upon  a  couch."  The  Pharisee 
marveled  that  Jesus  did  not  baptize,  by  washing  His 
hands  before  dinner. 

4.  Our  next  example  is  Mark  vii.  4:  "And  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash  [bapti- 
soontat],  they  eat  not.      And  many  other  things  there  be, 


I20       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  [hap- 
tismous]  of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 
The  word  klinon  (couches)  here  translated  "tables,"  is 
not  in  the  Sinaitic  nor  in  Wescott  and  Hort.  It  is  not 
supposable  that  the  Jews  always  immersed  themselves 
before  eating  after  they  came  from  the  markets.  The 
markets  were  the  places  of  public  resort  as  well  as  traffic, 
and  the  same  person  often  went  many  times  to  the 
market-place  the  same  day ;  this  would  involve  many  im- 
mersions of  the  same  person  the  same  day.  When  we 
consider  the  fact  that  if  a  Jew  immersed  himself  for  pur- 
ification, or  any  part  of  himself,  it  must  be  in  running 
water,  not  in  a  bath-tub,  we  see  the  utter  impossibility  of 
these  baptisms  being  immersions;  for  very  few  of  the 
Jewish  people  had  sufficient  running  water  near  their 
homes  to  immerse  themselves  in.  This  precludes  the  pos- 
sibility of  immersion.  These  baptisms  when  coming  from 
the  markets  were  a  sprinkling  of  the  clothes,  in  addition  to 
the  washing  of  their  hands. 

This  is  made  certain  by  pavTLorwvTai  (rantisoontai)  in  the 
margin  of  the  common  Greek  text;  Tischendorf  giving  it 
the  preference,  and  Wescott  and  Hort,  the  latest  revis- 
ers of  the  Greek  text,  putting  it  in  the  text.  Many  of  the 
ancient  manuscripts  have  haptisoontai,  and  many  have 
rantisoontai,  thus  showing  that  among  the  ancient  Greek 
transcribers  these  words  were  used  interchangeably. 

Dr.  Ditzler  remarks  on  this  passage:  "So  well  was 
it  known  that  the  baptisms  of  Mark  vii.  4  were  all  by 
sprinkling,  that  the  learned  Greeks  who  duplicated  man- 
uscripts translate  haptisoontai,  in  that  place  rantisoontai, 
'SPRINKLE  themselves.'  The  two  oldest  copies  of  the  New 
Testament  known  thus  translate  it.  Seven  others  do 
so."     (Ditzler  on  "Baptism,"  pp.  67-68.) 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       121 

The  baptisms  when  coming  from  the  markets  were 
unquestionably  performed  by  sprinkling!  Here  we 
have  haptisoontai  and  rantisoontai  used  by  the  Greeks 
themselves  interchangeably  to  express  the  same  act — 
purifying  before  eating.  This  certainly  ought  to  settle 
the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  mind  of  every  earnest 
seeker  after  the  truth.  But  how  were  "the  cups,  pots, 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables"  baptized? 

Mr.  Wesley,  who  was  one  of  the  best  Greek  scholars 
of  his  day,  says:  "The  Greek  word  baptisms  means  in- 
differently either  washing  or  sprinkling.  The  cups  and 
pots  were  washed;  the  beds  were  sprinkled.''  (Wesley's 
"Notes.") 

In  AliJ'ord's  Greek  Testament  with  Notes  I  find  the 
following  on  this  passage:  "These  baptismoi,  as  applied 
to  klinon  (meaning  probably  here  'couches,'  triclinia, 
used  at  meals) ,  were  certainly  not  immersions,  but  sprink- 
lings or  affusions  of  water."  These  klinon  were  fre- 
quently elevations  of  the  floor  around  the  room,  on  which 
they  reclined  at  their  meals,  and  not  such  objects  as  ad- 
mitted of  immersion.  They  could  have  been  baptized 
only  by  sprinkling. 

But  there  is  one  fact  that  has  been  strangely  over- 
looked by  writers  on  this  passage,  and  that  is,  that  all 
metallic  vessels  which  could  "abide"  the  fire  were 
purified,  not  by  passing  through  the  water,  or  being  put  into 
the  water,  but  by  passing  through  the  fire  and  afterwards 
having  the  water  of  separation  sprinkled  upon  them. 
This  was  the  specific  provision  of  the  law.  In  Numbers 
xxxi.  23  we  read:  "Every  thing  that  may  abide  the 
fire,  ye  shall  make  it  go  through  the  fire,  and  it  shall  be 
clean;  nevertheless  it  shall  be  purified  with  the  water  of 
separation:  and  all  that  abideth  not  the  fire  ye  shall  make 
go  through  the  water."  The  pots,  if  they  were  of  iron, 
—9— 


122       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

and  the  "brazen  vessels"  were  baptized  by  sprinkling; 
they  were  purified  by  having  the  water  of  separation 
sprinkled  upon  them — and  this  is  called  the  baptism  of 
"pots  and  brazen  vessels" ! 

Here  haptismos  is  applied  to  the  purification  of  per- 
sons and  vessels,  where,  in  regard  to  the  persons  and 
metallic  vessels  and  couches,  it  unquestionably  means 
SPRINKLE.  In  regard  to  cups  and  other  vessels  not  of 
metal,  it  means  to  put  into  water,  or  pass  through  the 
water,  and  may  imply  immersion.  A  word  that  can  be 
applied  to  these  diJBferent  modes  of  cleansing  or  purifica- 
tion cannot  specifically  mean  to  dip  or  immerse.  This  is 
so  evident  that  a  child  can  see  it.  There  is  no  possible 
chance  for  immersionists  to  escape  here. 

5.  The  final  passages  in  the  New  Testament  where 
haptidzo  and  haptismos  are  used,  and  not  applied  to 
John's  baptism  nor  the  Christian  ordinance,  are  Matthew 
XX.  22-23,  Mark  x.  38-39,  and  Luke  xii.  50,  where  they 
are  applied  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  The  American 
Bible  Union,  with  Dr.  Conant  at  its  head,  about  fifty  years 
ago,  published  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  pro- 
fessedly to  always  translate  haptidzo  and  haptismos  "im- 
merse" and  "immersion."  Dr.  Conant,  in  his  Preface 
to  his  "Baptizein,"  says: 

"The  Bible  Society  for  which  I  have  the  honor  to 
labor  has  adopted  it  as  its  fundamental  principle,  to  be 
applied  to  all  its  versions,  whether  for  the  home  or  foreign 
field,  the  faithful  translation  of  every  word  capable  of 
being  expressed  in  the  language  of  the  version.  This  is, 
in  the  view  of  its  managers  and  members,  the  only 
principle  justly  claiming  to  be  catholic,  and  from  its 
nature  admits  of  no  KxcbpTions. 

"It  seems  proper,  therefore,  in  presenting  to  the 
public  a  revised  English  version  of  the  New  Testament  in 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       123 

which  this  word  is  rendered  into  EngHsh,  to  show  that 
the  translation  expresses  its  True  and  only  import,  and 
not  a  sectarian  translation." 

It  is  apparent  from  this  statement  of  Dr.  Conant 
that  the  American  Bible  Union  set  out  with  the  determin- 
ation to  always  translate  these  words  "immerse"  and 
"immersion,"  as  that  is  their  "true  and  only  import." 
But  in  the  above  passages  they  had  not  the  face  or  hardi- 
hood to  carry  out  their  "fundamental  principle"!  In 
Matthew  xx.  22-23,  they  eliminate  these  words.  For 
this  they  had  the  authority  of  Tischendorf.  But  in  Mark 
X.  38-39  they  translate:  "Are  ye  able  to  drink  the  cup 
that  I  drink,  and  to  endure  the  immersion  which  I 
ENDURE?  And  they  said  to  him.  We  are  able.  And 
Jesus  said  to  them,  Ye  shall  indeed  drink  the  cup  that  I 
drink,  and  endure  the  immersion  which  I  Endure." 
Here  they  translate  haptidzo  four  times  "endure,"  or, 
rather,  they  substitute  "endure"  for  ''baptize'* \  And 
yet  Dr.  Conant  tells  us  "its  true  and  only  import"  is 
immerse!  Do  "endure"  and  "immerse"  have  the  same 
imports 

"Jesus  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask: 
can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of?  and  be  baptized 
with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with?  And  they  said 
unto  him,  We  can.  And  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Ye  shall 
indeed  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of;  and  with  the 
baptism  that  I  am  baptized  withal  shall  ye  be  baptized." 
Why  did  they  not  stick  to  their  fundamental  rule,  which 
was  "to  make  no  exceptions,"  and  translate  this  passage, 
* '  Can  ye  be  immersed  with  the  immersion  I  am  immersed 
WITH?"  and  "Ye  shall  be  immersed  with  the  immersion 
I  am  immersed  with"?  Or  why  did  they  not  translate 
it,  "Are  ye  able  to  be  immersed  in  the  immersion  I  am 
immersed  in?"  and  "Ye  shall  be  immersed  in  the  im- 


124       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

mersion  I  am  immersed  in"?  This  translation  would 
have  been  consistent  with  their  "fundamental  rule,"  but 
it  would  not  have  been  consistent  with  common  sense. 
Yet  it  would  have  been  as  sensible  and  as  near  the  truth 
as  their  translation  of  Matthew  iii.  1 1 ,  "  He  will  immerse 
you  IN  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire,"  or  Acts  i.  5,  "But  ye 
shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  many  days 
hence." 

But  Dr.  Conant  and  his  fellow-laborers  knew  that 
immersion  is  not  something  to  be  immersed  with,  and 
equally  well  did  they  know  that  immersion  is  not  some- 
thing to  be  immersed  in.  And  hence  they  must  find  a 
way  out  of  the  difficulty,  even  if  it  was  by  translating 
their  word  that  has  "but  one  True  and  only  meaning," 
and  that  meaning  is  ''immerse,''  by  a  word  that  has  no 
connection  with  immersion,  or  any  other  word  of  mode. 

In  Luke  xii.  50  they  translate  baptidzo  "undergo": 
"But  I  have  an  immersion  to  undergo;  and  how  I  am 
straitened  till  it  be  accomplished!"  Why  did  they  not 
translate  this  passage  according  to  their  rule,  "I  have  an 
immersion  to  be  immersed  with,"  or  "I  have  an  immersion 
to  be  immersed  in"? 

Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  "Living  Oracles,"  translates 
Mark  x.  38-39:  "Can  ye  drink  such  a  cup  as  I  am  to 
drink,  and  undergo  an  immersion  like  that  which  I  must 
UNDERGO?  They  answered.  We  can.  Jesus  said  to 
them,  You  shall  indeed  drink  such  a  cup  as  I  am  to 
drink,  and  undergo  an  immersion  like  that  which  I  must 
UNDERGO."  Luke  xii.  50  he  translates:  "I  have  an  im- 
mersion to  UNDERGO,  and  how  I  am  pained  till  it  be 
accomplished!" 

These  translators  give  two  definitions  to  their  word 
which  has  "but  one  true  and  only  meaning,"  and  that 
"to  immerse/'  which  no  lexicon  on  earth  gives jt;  and 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       125 

which  have  no  reference  whatever  to  mode  or  action! 
They  were  coined  to  meet  an  emergency,  but  they  ut- 
terly overthrow  the  position  of  immersionists,  who  by 
these  translations  admit  that  baptidzo  is  not  a  word  of 
mode  or  action,  but  a  word  of  denomination— expressing 
a  thing  done,  but  not  the  manner  of  doing  it. 

But  there  was  no  immersion  in  Christ's  baptism  of 
sufferings.  His  sufferings  "came  upon  Him,"  were  "laid 
on  Him."  (See  Isaiah  liii.  4,  5,  6.)  Hear  the  prophet  as 
he  describes  this  baptism  of  sufferings  as  they  came  upon 
the  Savior  of  men  in  Gethsemane  and  onCalvary :  "Surely 
He  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows:  yet  we 
did  esteem  Him  stricken,  smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted. 
But  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  He  was 
bruised  for  our  iniquities:  the  chastisement  of  our  peace 
was  upon  Him ;  and  with  His  stripes  we  are  healed.  All 
we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray;  we  have  turned  every 
one  to  his  own  way;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on  Him  the 
iniquity  of  us  all." 

There  was  no  immersion  in  Christ's  baptism  of  suf- 
ferings, nor  anything  that  has  the  slightest  resemblance 
to  immersion;  but  all  to  the  contrary.  "Laid  on," 
"stricken,"  "smitten,"  "stripes,"  "shall  bear,"  etc.,  etc., 
show  that  there  was  no  immersion  in  the  baptism  of  suf- 
ferings that  came  upon  the  Savior  in  the  hour  of  His 
agony  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  The  mode  or  action  of 
this  baptism  was  the  same  as  the  mode  or  action  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  was  poure^d  out,  fell 

ON,  CAME  UPON,  was  SHED  FORTH,  CtC,  CtC. 

We  have  now  gone  over  all  the  examples  of  the  use 
of  baptidzo  and  baptismos  in  the  Septuagint  and  the  New 
Testament,  where  John's  baptism  and  the  Christian  or- 
dinance are  not  spoken  of;  and  we  have  not  found  a 
single  case  of  immersion,  except,  possibly,  in  the  baptism 


126       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

of  the  cups  and  pots  that  were  not  of  metal.  In  every 
other  case  they  mean  unmistakably  to  sprinkle,  or  to 
pour  upon,  never  to  immerse.  This  ought  to  settle  their 
meaning  when  applied  to  John's  baptism  and  the  Chris- 
tian ordinance. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Forck  and  Meaning  of  the  Prepositions  Used 
WITH  "Baptidzo." 

Great  stress  is  put  upon  the  meaning  of  the  prep- 
ositions CIS  {eis),  ev  (en),  and  ck  (ek)  by  our  immersionist 
friends.     They  contend   that   eU  (eis),  when   used  with 
verbs  of  motion,  always  means  motion  into  a  place ;  that 
cv  (en)  always  means  "in"  when   used  in  reference  to 
baptism;  and  that  ck  (ek)  always  means  "out  of."     We 
admit  that  eis  frequently  means  "into,"  but  not  always. 
Liddell  and  Scott  give  as  its  radical  signification:     "Di- 
rection towards,  motion  to,  on,  or  into.''     Pickering  says : 
"The  radical  signification  is,  direction  towards,  motion 
to,  into,  or  on,  into;'  etc.,  etc.      Groves  defines  it:  "m, 
into,  to,  unto,"  etc.,  etc.     Not  one  of  these  lexicons  give 
"into"    or    "motion   into"    as   the   radical   or   primary 
meaning  of  eis.     This  preposition  occurs  1,742  times  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  is  translated  510  times  "into," 
if  I  made  no  mistake  in  counting,  and  I  was  very  careful; 
1,232   times  it  is  translated   "in,"   "to,"   "unto,"   "to- 
wards," "for,"  "against,"  etc.,  etc.     In  less  than  one- 
third  of  its  occurrences  it  is  translated  "into." 

According  to  the  rule  insisted  on  by  immersionists, 
that  words  are  always  to  be  understood  in  their  ''radical 
or  primary  meaning,  unless  their  connection  shows  that 
some  other  meaning  must  be  attached  to  them,"  we  must 
understand  eis  to  mean  "motion  towards,"  and  not 
"into." 

127 


128       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

When  the  Greeks  wished  to  specifically  express 
motion  into  a  place  by  the  force  of  the  preposition  eis, 
they  used  it  both  before  and  after  the  verb.  Instances 
of  this  often  occur,  as  ''eiselthen  eis,"  or  " eiserchomai  eis." 
We  have  numerous  examples  of  this  usage,  both  in  the 
New  Testament  and  in  the  Septuagint. 

We  have  a  striking  example  of  this  usage  in  John's 
account  of  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord:  John  xx.  4, 
"and  came  first  to  (eis)  the  sepulchre,"  ("elthe  protos 
eis  mnemion")]  verse  6,  "Then  cometh  Simon  Peter  fol- 
lowing him  and  he  went  into  the  sepulchre,"  "eiselthen 
eis  to  mnemion."  We  have  three  examples  of  this  usage 
in  Acts  ix. :  verse  6,  "Arise,  go  into  the  city,"  "eiselthe 
eis";  verse  8,  "but  they  led  him  by  the  hand,  and 
brought  him  into  Damascus,"  "m  egagon  eis";  verse  17, 
"And  Ananias  went  his  way  and  entered  into  the  house," 
''Apelthe  de  Ananias  kai  eiselthen  eis."  In  Matthew 
xviii.  3  we  read:  "Except  ye  be  converted  and  become 
as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  [eiselthete  eis]  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  John  iii.  5:  "Ye  cannot  enter 
into  [eiselthein  eis]  the  kingdom  of  God."  Mark  ii.  i : 
"Again  He  entered  into  [eiselthen  eis]  Capernaum." 
Matthew  v.  20:  "Ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  [eis- 
elthete eis]  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  We  might  go  on  and 
fill  page  after  page  with  such  examples,  but  it  is  not  nec- 
essary ;  these  are  sufficient  to  show  the  usage. 

The  same  usage  obtains  in  the  Septuagint.  In  Ex- 
odus XXX.  20:  "When  they  go  into  (eisporeuontai  eis) 
the  Tabernacle  of  the  congregation."  In  verse  21  we 
again  have  eisporeuontai  eis.  Leviticus  x.  9:  "When  ye 
go  into  [eisporeuesthe  eis]  the  Tabernacle."  Exodus  xiv. 
22:  "And  the  children  of  Israel  went  into  the  midst  of 
the  sea,"  '  ("i^'a^  eiselthon  oi  uoio  Israel  eis  meson  tees 
thalases").     Second  Kings  xix.  i :     "And  went  into  [m- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       129 

elthen  eis]  the  house  of  the  Lord."  Psalm  c.  4:  "Enter 
into  [eiselthate  eis]  his  gates."  These  examples  might  be 
multiplied  indefinitely,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  show 
the  usage.  In  not  a  single  example  of  its  use  with  bap- 
tidzo  do  we  have  this  usage.  This  is  a  most  significant 
fact. 

The  preposition  ev  (en)  is  defined  by  Liddell  and 
Scott  thus:  "Radical  significance,  a  being  or  remain- 
ing within,  and  so  half  way  between  eU  [eis]  and  ck  [ek]. 
Of  place,  of  all  situated  within  a  given  space,  in,  on,  at; 
(2)  on,  upon;  (3)  enclosed  within,  surrounded  by;  (4)  on,  at 
or  by;  (5)  in  the  nnmber  of,  amongst;  (6)  within  one's  reach 
or  power,  on  one's  hands;  (7)  in  presence  of;  (8)  in  re- 
spect of;  (9)  in  accordance,  unison  with.  III.  Of  the  in- 
strument or  means,  .  .  .  strictly,  to  grasp  it,  so  it  is 
in  the  hand;  and  so  in  almost  all  cases  the  original  sig- 
nificance is  traced,  to  put  in  the  fire  and  burn,  in  fetters 
and  bind,  etc.,  thus  ev  o</)^aX/xoIs  opav  [en  ophthalmois  oran], 
to  see  with  eyes — i.  e.,  take  the  object  in  with  the  eye,"  etc. 
Here  the  primary  meaning  is  "with,"  as  is  always  the 
case  when  ev  {en)  is  used  in  the  instrumental  sense. 

Picke;ring  defines  it:  '7n,  at;  it  governs  the  dative, 
and  demands  rest  in;  likewise  the  state  or  condition  in 
which  any  thing  is,  (i)  appUed  to  place,  in,  at,  on,  within, 
etc. ;  (2)  of  the  instrument  or  means,  with,  by  means  of, 
by,  etc." 

Groves  defines  it:  "In,  within,  inside,  among;  on, 
upon;  against;  at,  near,  during,  while,  whilst;  by  way  of, 
by;  with,  by  means  of,  through, by;  into,  to,  towards,  un- 
to; for,  on  account  of,  by  reason  of,  or  according  to." 

Greenfield  defines  it:  "As  referring  to  place,  in, 
at,  etc.;  with,  by,  in  denoting  cause,  manner,  or  instru- 
ment." 


I30       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

Robinson,  like  the  other  lexicons  quoted,  defines  it: 
"Of  place,  in,  at,  etc.;  in  among;  at,  by,  near  to,  etc.; 
(2)  as  referring  to  that  which  accompanies  any  person  or 
thing,  with,  together  with,  attended  hy,  .  ,  .  Like  the 
Latin  ablative  of  cause,  manner,  and  instrument,  with^ 
hy,  in,  etc." 

Parkhurst  defines  it :  "i.  7w,  of  place.  2.  Among, 
3.  With,  together  with.  4.  With,  hy.  5.  By,  denoting  the 
agent.     6.  By,  through, ^^  etc.,  etc. 

Note  that  (i)  all  these  lexicons,  as  to  place,  give  m, 
at,  hy,  near  to,  as  the  meaning  of  ev  {en) ;  (2)  all  of  them 
give,  as  to  instrument,  manner,  etc.,  with,  hy,  etc.,  as  its 
meaning.  It  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  all  these 
lexicons  that  the  primary  meaning  of  ev  {en),  when  de- 
noting place,  is  "in";  and  when  denoting  instrument, 
manner,  etc.,  is  "with." 

Notwithstanding  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  lex- 
icons that  en,  when  used  in  the  instrumental  sense, 
primarily  means  "with,"  just  as  when  it  is  used  of  place, 
it  primarily  means  "in,"  Mr.  Bradkn,  in  his  debate  with 
me,  said:  ''En  means  'in'  unless  we  are  compelled  by 
the  context  to  give  some  other  meaning."  I  arose  and 
asked  him  this  question:  "Is  it  not  primarily  used  to 
represent  the  dative  of  instrument?"  He  replied:  "No, 
sir;  it  primarily  means  'in,'  and  we  so  render  it,  unless 
the  context  compels  us  to  give  a  different  meaning." 
("Braden  and  Hughey  Debate,"  p.  161.)  This  was  his 
closing  speech,  and  I  had  no  opportunity  to  reply;  but  I 
had  shown  the  facts  from  the  testimony  of  the  lexicons 
and  the  use  of  the  New  Testament.  We  will  show  the 
New  Testament  use  when  we  come  to  speak  of  John's 
baptizing  ''with  water." 

^'-      The   preposition  ck  {ek)  is  defined  by  LiddeIvL  and 
Scott  thus:     "Radical  significance,  from,  out  of,  or  away 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      131 

from  a  thing;  directly  the  opposite  of  eU  [ew]."  Now, 
remember  that  Liddell  and  Scott  say  the  radical  signif- 
icance of  eis  is  ''direction  towards,  motion  to,  on,  or  into.^' 
If  ek  is  "directly  opposite  to  eis,''  then  its  radical  sig- 
nificance is  motion  from,  not  out  of,  a  place. 

Pickering  defines  it  precisely  as  Liddell  and  Scott 
do  as  to  radical  signification,  and  then  defines  it :  ''Out  of, 
from,  away,  away  from,  sprung  from;  of,  by,  for,  on  account 
of;  after;  through;  in,"  etc. 

Groves  defines  it:  "(9/,  from,  out  of,  from  within, 
without,  outside;  off,  away  from,  above,  beyond;  after,  since, 
ever  since;  by,  with,  for,  at,  in." 

Greenfield  defines  it:  "From,  out  of." 
Robinson  defines  it:  "i.  Spoken  of  place,  and  de- 
notes motion  from  one  place  to  another;  from,  out  of, 
.  .  .  In  sense  of  Latin  ablative  of  cause,  manner,  and 
instrument,  viz.:  (i)  of  cause,  of,  from,  with;  (2)  of  man- 
ner, from,  out  of;  (3)  of  the  instrument  or  means,  etc., 
with,  by." 

Parkhurst  says:  "It  denotes  notion  from  a  place, 
out  of,  from,"  etc. 

Note  that  Parkhurst  and  Robinson  say  ''it  denotes 
motion  from  a  place,"  not  out  of  it;  and  Liddell  and  Scott 
and  Pickering  say  it  "is  radically  opposite  to  eis,  which 
radically  signifies  motion  toward  a  place."  Its  general 
meaning  is  from,  away  from,  out  of. 

We  see  that  these  prepositions  by  their  force  and 
meaning  cannot  help  our  immersionist  friends,  but  they 
are  squarely  against  them.  The  force  and  meaning  of  eis 
as  always  taking  its  object  into  must  be  given  up ;  for  the 
special  meaning  of  this  preposition  to  denote  motion  into 
a  place  (eiselthen  eis,  or  eiserchomai  eis,  or  eisporeuenthes 
eis)  is  never  used  in  connection  with  baptidzo,  so  eis  by 
its  force  and  meaning  can  never  take  the  person  into  the 


132       Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

water.  Its  radical  signification,  according  to  Liddell  and 
Scott  and  Pickering,  can  take  the  person  only  to  or  towards 
the  water;  while  ek,  its  opposite,  can  only  take  the  person 
from  or  away  from  the  water.  Into  is  expressed  by 
doubling  the  preposition,  eiselthon  eis,  etc.  If  the  force 
and  meaning  of  the  preposition  eis  takes  the  person  or 
thing  INTO  a  place,  why  did  the  Greeks,  the  translators  of 
the  Septuagint,  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
when  they  wished  to  specifically  express  motion  into  a 
place,  use  the  preposition  both  before  and  after  the  verb? 
This  usage  is  decisive  on  this  point,  and  clearly  sets  aside 
the  claim  of  immersionists,  that  eis  used  with  verbs  of 
motion  always  means  motion  into  a  place. 

The  preposition  aro  (apo),  which  is  translated  in 
our  common  version  (in  Matthew  iii.  i6)  ''out  of,"  is  thus 
defined  by  Liddell  and  Scott:  "Original  sense,  from, 
whether  a  place,  a  time,  or  any  object,  from  which  a  thing 
goes  forth,  is  derived,  or  parted,  i.  Of  place,  the  first 
in  Homer;  the  prevailing  significance,  (i)  implying  motion 
from,  away  from,"  etc.  This  is  its  primary  and  general 
signification,  as  all  lexicons  agree.  This  is  so  well  estab- 
lished that  the  American  Bible  Union,  in  its  translation 
of  the  New  Testament,  translates  apo  (in  Matthew  iii.  i6) 
''away  from,"  and  not  "out  of." 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Use  the  Early  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  Made 
OF  "Baptidzo"  and  "Baptismos." 

The  early  Greek  fathers  certainly  understood  their 
own  language,  and  if  we  can  find  out  the  use  they  made 
of  these  terms,  we  can  certainly  get  their  real  meaning. 
When  immersion  (that  is,  trine  immersion,  for  there  was 
no  other  kind  of  immersion  practiced  in  the  Early  Church ; 
and  that  did  not  begin,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  until  the 
third  century)  became  a  common  practice  among  the 
Greek  Christians,  in  the  third  and  following  centuries, 
did  they  use  baptidzo  and  haptismos  to  express  the  ACT 
of  immersion,  or  did  they  use  another  word  to  express 
that  ACT,  and  haptismos  to  express  the  baptism,  however 
performed?  This  is  an  important  question,  and  it  seems 
that  their  usage  must  settle  the  question  as  to  the  meaning 
of  these  words. 

The  Greek  fathers,  when  trine  immersion  became 
common  in  the  third  and  following  centuries,  invariably 
used  kataduo,  in  some  of  its  forms,  to  express  the  mode 
of  immersion,  and  baptidzo  or  haptismos  to  express  the 
Christian  ordinance,  however  performed.  This  proves 
that  haptidzo  does  not  express  the  act  of  immersion;  for 
when  the  Greeks  wished  to  express  that  act,  they  used 
another  word  which  all  admit  means  to  immerse. 

Mr.  Campbell,  in  tracing  out  the  derivation  of  the 
English  dip,  does  not  trace  it  to  hapto,  but  to  dupto,  from 
duo,  the  very  word  that  the  Greeks  used  in  its  compound 
forrn  with  kata,  to  express  the  act  of  immersion.     In  his 

133 


134       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"Debate"  with  Dr.  Rice,  on  page  170,  lie  says:  "As  to 
kataduo,  and  its  whole  family,  I  can,  in  a  few  words,  give 
its  history.  There  is  an  old-fashioned  Greek  verb,  found, 
I  believe,  in  Hesiod,  Homer,  and  other  still  more  modern 
writers.  It  is  dupto,  from  which,  in  the  old  English  style 
of  changing  u  into  y,  we  have  the  word  dyp.  Again,  in 
the  Anglo-Saxon  style  of  transmutation  dyp  is  changed 
into  dyph,  and  that  again  into  dive.  Now  of  this  whole 
family  duo  is  the  remote  ancestor,  and  consequently 
without  the  kata  signifies  to  dip  or  dive.  The  kataduo 
and  the  anaduo,  and  the  katadusis  and  the  anadusis,  are 
merely  special  forms  from  the  same  common  fountain." 
What  becomes  of  Mr.  Campbell's  statement  that  wherever 
you  find  bap  you  find  dip,  in  fact  or  in  figure,  when  he 
himself,  in  tracing  the  derivation  of  dip,  traces  it  to  dupto, 
and  not  to  baptof 

Dr.  CoNANT,  in  his  "Baptizein,"  gives  us  several  ex- 
amples from  the  Greek  fathers.  When  they  speak  of  the 
immersion  in  baptism,  they  use  kataduo,  not  baptidzo. 
His  first  example  is  from  Cyrii^,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
A.  D.  350.  He  says,  as  translated  by  Dr.  Conant:  "  For 
as  Jesus,  assuming  the  sins  of  the  world,  died,  that  having 
slain  sin  He  might  raise  thee  up  to  righteousness ;  so  also 
thou,  going  into  the  water"  ("ovrw  koI  a-v  Kara/3as  eU  TO 
vScDPj "  "onto  kai  su  katabas  eis  to  hudoor'').  (Conant's 
"Baptizein,"  p.  102.)  Here  baptidzo  is  not  used  to  ex- 
press the  immersion,  or  mode  of  the  baptism,  but  ''kata- 
bas.'' If  baptidzo  is  the  word  that  always  expresses  im- 
mersion, why  did  this  Greek  father  use  katabas? 

Again,  in  Example  178,  from  the  same  writer,  he 
says:  "After  these  things,  ye  were  led  by  the  hand  to 
the  sacred  font  of  the  divine  immersion  [baptism,  Co- 
nant's translation]  as  Christ  from  the  cross  to  the  prepared 
tomb.     And  each  was  asked,  if  he  believes  in  the  name  of 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      135 

the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And 
ye  professed  the  saving  profession,  and  sunk  down  thrice 
into  the  water,  and  again  came  up"  ("Kat  KarcBvere  rpCrov 
€ts  TO  vhu)p,  Koi  irdXiv  dveSvere^"  "kai  kateduete  triton  eis  to 
hudor,  kai  palin  aneduete'').  (Jhid.,  p.  103.)  Dr.  Conant 
here  translates  kateduete  triton  to  hudor  ''sunk  down  thrice 
into  the  water  J'  instead  of  ''were  thrice  immersed  in  the 
water.''  In  immersion  a  man  does  not  sink  himself  down 
into  the  water,  as  this  translation  implies ;  but  he  is  plunged 
by  another  into  the  water.  Properly  translated,  it  reads, 
"and  ye  were  thrice  immersed  in  the  water.''  Why  did  not 
this  Greek  father  use  haptidzo  to  express  the  immersion^ 
if  it  always  means  to  immerse,  and  not  kataduo,  which 
specifically  means  to  immerse?  He  uses  haptismatos  to 
express  the  baptism,  and  kataduete  to  express  the  mode  by 
immersion! 

Again,  he  quotes  Chrysostom,  A.  D.  400,  who  says : 
"For  to  be  immersed  [baptized],  and  to  sink  down,  then 
emerge,"  etc.  (Dr.  Conant's  translation.)  The  Greek  of 
this  passage  is:  "To  yap  jSa-n-TLieaO at  Kol  KaraSvea-OaL^  etra 
avavevcLv."  {"To  gar  baptizesthai  kai  kataduesthai,  eita 
ananeuein.")  Properly  translated,  it  reads:  "For  to  be 
baptized  and  to  be  immersed,  and  then  to  emerge."  Here 
baptizesthai  is  used  to  express  baptism,  and  kataduesthai  to 
express  the  mode — immersion,  and  ananeuein  to  express 
the  emersion.  If  baptidzo  always  means  to  immerse,  why 
did  Chrysostom  use  kataduesthai  to  express  the  immer- 
sion? That  kataduo  in  all  these  examples  means  im- 
merse, and  is  used  to  express  the  immersion,  or  mode  of 
the  baptism  spoken  of,  everyone  knows.  Now  if  baptidzo 
in  this  passage  means  immerse,  as  Conant  translates  it, 
what  sense  is  there  in  the  passage?  "For  to  be  immersed 
and  immersed" \  This  shows  that  by  baptidzo  Chrys- 
ostom intended  to  express  the  Christian  ordinance,  and 


136       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

by  kataduo  the  mode,  proving  conclusively  that  haptidzo 
does  not  mean  specifically  to  immerse. 

The  contrast  between  these  words  is  brought  out 
fully  in  Conant's  Example  192,  from  Thhophylact, 
Archbishop  of  Achrida,  A.  D.  1070.     Theophylact  says: 

Ev  ii\v  yap  upTjTaL  ^aTrrtcr/xa,  uxrwep  Kal  7rt(7Tis  /xtttj  Slol 
TO  eTTt  rrj  reXeTrj  BrjXahr)  Boyfxa^  iv  ov  iv  7rd(Tr)  *lEiKK\rj(ria  rrj  -jrap- 
aXa/Sovcrrj  ftaTrrt^uv  rrj  t^s  TptaSos  CTriKXT/cret  koX  tvttovv  rov 
Tov  Kvpiov  ddvarov  kol  ttjv  avdcrracnv  rrj  rpicrcrri  KaraSrcret  koI 
avaov(T€i. 

Which  Dr.  Conant  translates  as  follows:  "For  one 
immersion  [baptism]  is  spoken  of,  as  also  one  faith,  be- 
cause of  the  doctrine  respecting  the  initiation,  being  one 
in  all  the  Church,  which  has  been  taught  to  immerse 
[baptize]  with  invocation  of  the  Trinity,  and  to  symbolize 
the  Lord's  death  and  resurrection  by  the  threefold  sinking 
down  and  coming  up." 

Here  Dr.  Conant  translates  te  trisse  katadusei  kai 
anadusei  "the  threefold  sinking  down  and  coming  up." 
This  is  not  a  proper  translation,  for,  as  before  observed, 
it  implies  that  the  man  sinks  himself  down !  But  in  im- 
mersion he  is  plunged  in  the  water  by  another.  But 
this  does  not  help  Dr.  Conant  out  of  his  difficulty,  but 
only  gets  him  deeper  in;  for  "one  immersion"  is  not 
performed  by  "a  threefold  sinking  down"  but  by  one 
plunging!  So  that  Dr.  Conant's  translation  contradicts 
what  everyone  knows  to  be  the  fact.  Now  translate  te 
trisse  katadusei  kai  anadusei,  and  we  have,  according  to 
Dr.  Conant,  ''one  immersion  performed  by  three  immer- 
sions ' ' !  By  this  time  everyone  can  see  that  this  Greek 
archbishop  here  declares  that  we  have  one  baptism 
performed  by  three  immersions!  Baptisma  here  ex- 
presses the  Christian  ordinance,  katadusei  and  anadusei 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       137 

its  mode  by  immersion  and  emersion,  and  that  not  once, 
but  three  times  repeated. 

But  there  are  a  number  of  examples  from  the  Greek 
fathers  which  clearly  show  the  distinction  they  made 
between  the  meaning  of  haptismos  and  immersion,  which 
Dr.  Conant  does  not  give.  I  will  quote  a  few  examples 
furnished  by  Prof.  MosES  Stuart  : 

"Basil,  A.  D.  330,  says:  'By  the  three  immersions 
(cy  Tpto-t  rats  KaraSvo-co-i) ,  and  by  the  like  number  of  in- 
vocations, the  great  mystery  of  baptism  is  completed.'  " 
(Stuart  on  "Baptism,"  p.  148.)  Here  the  difference  be- 
tween baptism  and  immersion  is  complete.  Baptism  is 
the  name  of  the  Christian  ordinance ;  the  mode  is  by  three 
immersions!  How  would  it  sound  to  say,  'By  three  immer- 
sions, and  the  like  number  of  invocations,  the  great 
mystery  of  immersion  is  completed"?  Is  this  the  reason 
Dr.  Conant  did  not  quote  this  passage? 

"John  of  Damascus,  A.  D.  690,  says:  'Baptism  is 
a  type  of  the  death  of  Christ,  for  by  three  immersions 
KaraSvo-cW),  baptism  signifies,'  "  etc.  {Ibid.)  How  would 
it  sound  to  say,  "For  by  three  immersions,  immersion 
signifies"? 

"PhoTius,  a.  D.  858,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  on 
Rom.  vi.,  says:  'The  three  immersions  and  emersions 
(KaraSvo-ci?  koX  avahv(Tu%)  of  baptism  signify  death  and 
resurrection.'  "     {Ibid.) 

How  would  this  read,  "The  three  immersions  and 
emersions  of  immersion  signify  death  and  resurrection"? 

These  examples  prove  beyond  controversy  that  bap- 
tism in  one  thing,  and  immersion  is  another  thing  alto- 
gether. They  prove  that  baptidzo  is  not  a  word  of  mode, 
but  of  denomination — it  expresses  a  thing  done,  but  not 
the  manner  of  doing  it.  When  the  Greek  fathers  spoke 
of  the  Christian  ordinance,  they  used  baptidzo  or  baptismos, 
—10— 


138       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

and  when  they  spoke  of  the  mode  of  its  administration  by 
immersion  they  used  kataduo,  which  all  admit  means 
immerse. 

Now,  the  question  is,  Did  they  understand  their  own 
language?  If  they  did,  Dr.  Carson's  position,  that  bap- 
tidzo  "always  means  to  dip;  never  expressing  anything 
but  mode,''  and  Mr.  Campbell's  position,  that  it  expresses 
''specific  action,  and  specific  action  only,''  are  demonstrated 
to  be  false. 

The  Latins,  like  the  Greeks,  used  baptidzo  and  bap- 
tismos  to  express  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  but  used 
mergo,  immergo,  etc.,  to  express  the  mode  by  immersion. 

Dr.  Conant  gives  us  a  number  of  examples  where  we 
have  this  use.     We  remark,  before  we  take  up  these  ex- 
amples, that  the  Latin  fathers  transfer  the  Greek  bap- 
tidzo or  baptismos  usually  when  speaking  of  baptism  to 
express  the  Christian  ordinance,  and  mergo  in  some  of  its 
forms  and  inflections  to  express  the  mode  of  immersion. 
When  they  translate   baptidzo,   notably  in  Tertullian's 
case,  they  do  not  translate  it  by  mergo,  but  by  tingo.     In 
Dr.  Conant' s  first  example  from  TertuUian  (Example  204) 
he  translates  Romans  vi.  3 :     "Know  ye  not,  that  so  many 
of  us  as  were  immersed  into  Christ  Jesus  were  immersed 
into  His  death?"     The  Latin  reads:     "An  ignoratis  quod 
quicunque  in  Christum  Jesum  TiNCTi  sumus,  in  mortem  ejus 
TiNCTi  sumus?"     Here  Dr.  Conant  translates  iincti  twice 
''immersed."     Yet  he  knew  that  it  is  not  the  Latin  word 
for  immerse,  and  that  TertuUian  himself  used  it  to  express 
the  act  of  sprinkling  in  baptism,  in  contradistinction  from 
immersion,  in  the  same  passage  in  his  "De  Baptismo,"  as 
we  shall  see  fully  when  we  come  to  discuss  the  history  of 
baptism.     We  simply  state  here,  that  this  translation  is 
wholly  unauthorized,  and  will  prove  it  when  we  come  to 
discuss  the  meaning  of  tingo. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       139 

Example  205,  the  same  passage  (a  few  lines  below), 
we  read:  "For  by  an  image  we  die  in  baptism;  but  we 
truly  rise  in  the  flesh,  as  did  also  Christ."  The  Latin 
reads:  ''Per  simulacrum  enim  morimur  in  baptismaTK, 
sed  per  -veritatem  resurgimus  in  came,  sicut  et  Christus.'^ 
Here  Tertullian  transfers  the  word  haptismos;  and, 
strange  to  say.  Dr.  Conant  does  not  translate  it  ''im- 
merse," but  follows  Tertullian,  and  transfers  it! 

Example  206  from  Tertullian:  "And  last  of  all, 
commanding  that  they  should  immerse  into  the  Father, 
and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  Latin  reads: 
*  'Et  novissime  mandans  ut  TinguerKnT  in  patrem  et  fHiwtn 
et  spiritum  sanctum.''  Here  Dr.  Conant  translates  tinguer- 
ent  "immerse.''  We  here  again  state  that  for  this  he  had 
no  authority,  as  we  will  show  farther  on. 

In  Example  207  he  quotes  Tertullian:  "Then  we 
are  three  times  immersed,  answering  somewhat  more 
than  the  Lord  prescribed  in  the  gospel."  The  Latin  is: 
"Dehinc  ter  mERGITamur,  amplius  aliquid  respondentes 
quam  Dominus  in  evangelio  determinavit."  This  is  taken 
from  Tertullian' s  "De  Corona,"  where  he  is  speaking  of 
the  things  practiced  on  the  authority  of  tradition  alone. 
He  says:  "To  begin  with  baptism."  Here,  when  he  is 
speaking  of  the  Christian  ordinance,  he  calls  it  baptism, 
but  when  he  comes  to  speak  of  the  mode,  he  calls  mer- 
gitamur  "  immersion  "I  Remember,  with  Tertullian  im- 
mersion is  always  "trine  immersion."  The  single  dip 
was  unknown  among  the  ancient  immersionists. 

In  Example  217,  taken  from  Alcuin,  we  read: 
"And  so  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  he  is  baptized 
with  trine  immersion."  The  Latin  is:  "Et  sic  in  nom- 
ine sanctce  Trinitatis  trina  submersionE  baptizatur." 
Why  did  not  Dr.  Conant  translate  baptizatur  "im- 
mersed"?    Why  did  he  translate  it,  "He  baptized  him 


I40       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

WITH  a  trine  submersion"?  It  would  not  have  sounded 
well  to  read,  "He  immersed  him  with  a  trine  submersion." 
Nor  could  it  have  sounded  any  better  to  have  translated 
it,  "He  immersed  him  in  a  trine  submersion.''  Dr.  Co- 
nant  knew  that  it  would  not  make  sense  to  translate  it  in 
either  of  these  ways,  so  he  just  Anglicised  baptizatur, 
and  transferred  it  over  into  English ;  for  which  he  and  his 
brethren  so  severely  criticise  King  James'  translators. 

We  might  multiply  these  examples,  but  these  are 
sufficient  to  prove  beyond  dispute  that  the  early  Greek 
and  Latin  fathers  made  a  distinction  between  baptism 
and  its  mode  by  immersion.  They  used  baptidzo  and  bap- 
tismos  to  express  baptism;  and  kataduo  in  Greek,  and 
mergo  in  Latin,  to  express  its  mode  by  immersion.  Could 
anything  be  made  plainer  by  this  usage  than  that  baptidzo 
is  not  a  word  of  mode,  but  of  denomination?  It  expresses 
a  thing  done,  but  not  the  manner  of  doing  it.  That  must 
be  expressed  by  some  other  word,  or  learned  from  the 
circumstances  or  the  nature  of  the'case. 


CHAPTER  X. 

John's  Baptism. 

Having  ascertained  the  meaning  of  the  words  bapto 
and  baptidzo  (i)  from  the  lexicons;  (2)  from  classical 
use ;  (3)  from  Jewish  use  as  found  in  the  Septuagint,  the 
Apocrypha,  and  the  New  Testament,  where  John's  baptism 
and  the  Christian  ordinance  are  not  spoken  of,  and  the 
force  and  meaning  of  the  prepositions  eis,  ek,  en,  and  apo, 
when  used  with  the  verb  baptidzo — we  are  now  prepared 
to  enter  upon  the  Scripture  argument. 

We  will  first  take  up  the  baptism  of  John.  While 
John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  yet  as  to  modey 
John's  baptism  and  Christian  baptism  were  the  same. 
While  John's  baptism  was  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
and  those  who  received  it  thereby  publicly  professed  that 
they  repented  of  their  sins;  and  Christian  baptism  is  a 
public  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  of  obedience  to 
Him  as  Lord  and  Master — yet  both  pointed  to  cleansing 
from  sin,  and  purification  from  moral  pollution  or  de- 
filement, just  as  did  all  the  baptisms  of  the  law  of  Moses. 
In  this  respect  there  is  unity  of  import  in  all  the  baptisms 
of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  well  as  unity  of 
mode.  The  question,  then,  is:  How  did  John  baptize 
the  multitudes  who  came  to  his  baptism?  Did  he  im- 
merse them?  or  did  he  baptize  them  by  the  uniform  mode 
practiced  by  the  Jewish  priests  from  the  days  of  Aaron 
to  the  time  of  his  baptism,  which  was  by  sprinkling? 
We  answer  without  hesitation:  He  baptized  them  by 
sprinkling.     But  our  immersionist  friends  reply :     "Did 

141 


142       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

not  John  baptize  in  Jordan?  and  does  not  that  prove  that 
he  immersed  the  people?"  We  answer:  Not  by  any 
means.  Do  not  forget  that  Liddell  and  Scott  define  en: 
"  I .  Of  place,  of  all  situated  within  a  given  space,  in,  on, 
at.*'  All  within  the  banks  was  in  the  river,  and  he  might 
have  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan,  and  never  baptized  in 
the  water  at  all.  But  our  immersionist  friends  ask: 
"Why  did  he  go  to  the  river  to  baptize,  if  he  did  not  go 
there  to  immerse  the  people?"  We,  in  turn,  may  ask: 
"Why  do  the  Methodists  always  seek  a  place  to  hold 
their  great  camp-meetings  where  there  is  plenty  of  water, 
as  at  Round  Lake,  Lake  Bluff,  Mountain  Lake  Park, 
Chautauqua,  etc.,  or  hunt  for  a  place  on  some  creek  or 
large  spring  where  there  is  plenty  of  water?  Is  it  to  find 
the  facilities  for  the  immersion  of  their  converts?"  We 
know  they  do  not  select  a  place  where  there  is  plenty  of 
water  for  any  such  purpose.  Every  large  gathering  of 
people  who  encamp  for  any  length  of  time  must  have  an 
abundant  supply  of  good  pure  water  for  drinking,  cooking, 
washing,  and  for  their  beasts  of  burden.  For  a  Jewish  con- 
gregation like  that  which  gathered  at  John's  great  camp- 
meetings  an  abundant  supply  of  living  (that  is,  running) 
water  was  an  absolute  necessity,  and  such  a  supply  in 
Judea,  at  that  season,  which  was  about  mid-summer,  was 
hard  to  find  except  at  the  Jordan.  It  was  the  most  con- 
venient place  for  such  a  gathering.  There  were  many 
thousands  gathered  at  his  camp-meetings  on  the  Jordan, 
and  they  all  had  to  have  abundance  of  water  for  their 
daily  ablutions  or  purifications,  for  drinking  and  cooking. 
It  does  not  take  a  river  to  immerse  in,  but  it  took  a  large 
amount  of  living  water  to  supply  a  camp-meeting  of  a 
hundred  thousand  Jews  for  several  weeks  together. 

But,  we  must  remember,  John  did  not  always  bap- 
tize in  Jordan,  or  hold  his  camp-meetings  on  its  banks. 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       143 

He  first  baptized  in  Bethabara,  Bethany  (as  Tischendorf 
puts  it),  beyond  Jordan.  John  x.  40:  "And  went  away 
again  beyond  Jordan  into  the  place  where  John  at  first 
baptized;  and  there  he  abode."  The  Sinaitic  John  i.  28 
reads  "Bethania,"  and  the  American  Bible  Union  Transla- 
tion reads  "Bethany,"  and  many  ancient  manuscripts 
and  versions  confirm  this  reading. 

John  began  his  ministry  and  baptism  in  the  little 
town  of  Bethany,  a  few  miles  beyond  Jordan,  and  as  the 
crowds  increased  he  moved  his  station  to  the  Jordan; 
when  his  popularity  began  to  wane,  he  moved  his  station 
to  the  Springs  of  Enon,  where  there  was  sufficient  water 
to  supply  the  diminished  multitudes  that  attended  his 
ministry  and  baptism. 

An  amusing  incident  occurred  in  my  first  debate 
with  Mr.  J.  S.  Sweeney,  at  Du  Quoin,  111.,  in  June,  1865. 
We  both  accepted  the  reading  in  the  common  version, 
"Bethabara."  In  making  my  argument  on  the  meaning 
of  the  preposition  en,  I  said:  "When  en  means  place  or 
locality,  its  primary  meaning  is  in  ;  but  when  it  is  used 
in  the  instrumental  sense,  its  primary  meaning  is  with." 
We  both  accepted  the  interpretation  of  Bethabara,  "a 
house  of  passage."  "Now,"  I  said,  "if  'in  Jordan'  means 
IN  the  river,  then  'in  Bethabara'  means  in  the  house; 
and  the  fact  that  John  went  out  of  the  river  into  a 
house  on  the  bank  to  baptize  is  evidence  conclusive  that 
he  did  not  immerse  the  people ;  for  since  the  world  began 
no  immersionist  preacher  ever  went  out  of  a  river  into 
a  house  on  its  bank  to  baptize  people." 

When  Mr.  Sweeney  rose  to  reply,  he  said:  "Elder 
Hughey  tells  us  that  'in'  has  a  sacred  meaning  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  it  means,  in  the  Bible,  not  in,  but  at, 
or  about.  He  is  like  a  Presb3rterian  lady  who  had  a 
daughter  who  said  to  her  one  day:     'Mother,  the  Bible 


144       TJie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian,  Baptism. 

says  they  were  baptized  in  Jordan.'  She  repUed:  'It 
does  not  mean  in  in  its  sacred  sense,  but  it  means  at  or 
about.*  The  next  morning  she  told  her  daughter  to 
strain  the  milk  in  the  bowl.  The  daughter  strained  the 
milk  at  or  about  the  bowl — all  over  the  table.  The 
mother  said  to  her:  'Why  did  you  not  strain  the  milk  in 
the  bowl,  as  I  told  you?'  She  replied:  'I  did.  You 
told  me  "in"  meant  at  or  about,  and  I  strained  it  at  or 
about  the  bowl.'  The  mother  replied:  'It  doesn't  mean 
that  in  ordinary  language;  that  is  its  sacred  meaning.' 
Now,"  he  said,  ''beth  means  'house,'  and  abara  means 
'water,'  and  Bethabara  means  *a  water-house,'  or  'a 
house  built  upon  the  water' — that  is,  a  ferry-boat.  And 
to  be  baptized  in  Bethabara  does  not  mean  to  be  bap- 
tized IN  the  ferry-boat;  but  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan, 
where  they  had  dug  down  a  place  in  the  bank  for  the  ferry- 
landing,  and  that  was  a  nice  place  to  go  down  into  the 
river  to  baptize,  and  that  is  what  it  means  to  be  baptized 
in  Bethabara." 

In  reply  I  said:  "I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
audience  to  the  fact  that  I  never  said  that  the  sacred  or 
Scriptural  meaning  of  'in'  was  at  or  about.  The  gentle- 
man has  replied  to  an  argument  I  never  made,  and  thus 
attempted  to  throw  dust  in  your  eyes."  I  said:  "When 
en  refers  to  place  or  locality,  it  means  in.  But  when  it  is 
used  in  the  sense  of  the  instrument,  it  means  with. 
John  baptized  in  Jordan;  that  was  the  place  where  he 
baptized.  But  he  baptized  with  water;  that  was  the 
manner  in  which  he  baptized.  When  he  baptized  in 
Bethabara,  he  baptized  in  the  house;  but  in  both  cases 
he  BAPTIZED  WITH  WATER.  But  evidently  my  friend  has 
been  taking  lessons  from  the  old  lady  in  'milk  theology.' 
To  be  baptized  in  Bethabara  does  not  mean  to  be  bap- 
tized IN  the  'ferry-boat,'  but  at  or  about  the 'ferry-boat' — 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      145 

that  is,  down  by  the  ferry-landing  on  the  other  side  of 
Jordan." 

I  took  Mr.  Sweeney  several  merry  rides  across  the 
Jordan  on  his  "ferry-boat"  Bethabara  during  the  debate. 
In  my  second  debate  with  him,  he  seemed  to  have  for- 
gotten all  about  his  famous  "ferry-boat"  Bethabara.  I 
called  his  attention  to  it,  but  he  would  not  renew  his  ac- 
quaintance with  it.  I  give  this  incident  to  show  the 
ridiculous  positions  the  advocates  of  immersion  are  some- 
times driven  to  in  their  efiforts  to  sustain  their  theory, 
which  cannot  be  sustained  by  sound  argument. 

I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  some  im- 
portant facts  in  regard  to  John's  baptism  that  should 
never  be  forgotten : 

I.  It  was  impossible  for  John  to  have  immersed  the 
vast  multitudes  he  baptized,  or  to  have  baptized  them 
singly  by  any  mode.  He  unquestionably  baptized  the 
great  mass  of  the  people  of  Judea.  The  language  used 
can  mean  nothing  less.  Matthew  says  (iii.  5-6) :  "Then 
went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the 
region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in 
Jordan,  confessing  their  sins."  The  population  of  Judea 
at  that  time  was  not  far  from  3,000,000,  and  the  major- 
ity of  these  John  baptized.  A  moment's,  relflection  can- 
not fail  to  convince  any  thoughtful  mind  of  the  utter 
impossibility  of  John  immersing  these  vast  multitudes. 
It  would  have  been  a  stupendous  miracle;  but  "John  did 
no  miracle."     (John  x.  41.) 

John's  ministry  lasted,  at  the  outside,  not  over  one 
year.  He  began  preaching  and  baptizing  when  he  was 
thirty  years  old.  Jesus  was  baptized  when  He  was  thirty 
years  old.  (Luke  iii.  23.)  His  forty-days  fast  and  temp- 
tation immediately  followed  His  baptism;  and  not  long 


146       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

after  His  return  from  His  temptations,  John  was  cast  in- 
to prison.     (Matthew  iv.  12.) 

If  John's  ministry  lasted  a  whole  year,  and  if  he  had 
stood  in  the  waters  of  Jordan  ten  hours  each  day,  and  im- 
mersed one  hundred  persons  every  hour,  a  thousand  a 
day,  and  giving  no  time  for  preaching  or  anything  else, 
he  could  have  baptized  but  365,000,  instead  of  at  least 
2,000,000,  which  he  did  unquestionably  baptize.  Who 
can  believe  that  such  a  thing  was  possible?  But  if  John 
immersed  the  people,  he  stood  in  the  cold  waters  of  the 
Jordan  ten  hours  a  day  for  365  days  consecutively,  with 
no  time  for  preaching  or  removing  his  stations  from 
Bethany  to  Jordan,  and  from  Jordan  to  Enon,  and  im- 
mersed 6,000  every  day  for  365  days!  Is  there  a  man 
outside  of  a  mad-house  who  can  believe  such  a  monstrous 
impossibility?  Yet  this  is  what  we  must  believe,  if  we 
believe  that  John  baptized  by  immersion. 

2.  But  suppose  that  John  could  have  baptized  the 
multitudes  who  came  to  his  baptism  by  immersion;  is  it 
at  all  probable  that  he  would  have  done  so  ? 

Remember  that  baptism  had  been  practiced  by 
Jewish  priests  from  the  days  of  Moses,  and  invariably  by 
SPRINKLING.  Remember,  also,  that  every  purification 
under  the  law,  whether  by  water  or  by  blood,  or  by  water 
and  blood  mixed  together,  or  by  the  water  of  separation, 
^  is  called  a  baptism,  and  is  included  in  the  divers  baptisms 
of  Hebrews  ix.  10;  for  in  verses  11  to  14  we  read:  "But 
Christ  being  come  an  high  priest  of  good  things  to  come, 
by  a  greater  and  more  perfect  tabernacle,  not  made  with 
hands,  that  is  to  say,  not  of  this  building ;  neither  by  the 
blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  His  own  blood  He  en- 
tered in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal 
redemption  for  us.  For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats, 
and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sane- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      147 

tifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh :  how  much  more  shall 
the  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered 
Himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from 
dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God?"  In  verses  18-21 
we  have  the  institution  of  baptism  recorded:  "Where- 
upon neither  the  first  testament  was  dedicated  without 
blood.  For  when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to  all 
the  people  according  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of 
calves  and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and 
hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book,  and  all  the  people. 
Saying,  This  is  the  blood  of  the  testament  which  God  hath 
enjoined  unto  you.  Moreover  he  sprinkled  with  blood 
both  the  tabernacle,  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry." 

Here  we  have  the  institution  of  baptism  among  the 
Jews,  and  it  was  performed  by  sprinkIvING.  When  a 
Jewish  priest  baptized  a  person  in  cleansing  from  leprosy, 
he  always  did  it  by  sprinkung.  (See  Leviticus  xiv.  7, 
51-52.)  No  other  mode  was  ever  practiced  in  any  of  the 
divers  baptisms  of  the  law  by  any  Jewish  priest  from 
Aaron  to  John  the  Baptist,  and  these  baptisms  were 
practiced  continually  for  fifteen  hundred  years. 

3.  John's  baptism  was  of  the  same  nature  and  mode 
of  the  Jewish  baptisms  or  purifications;  for  in  John  iii. 
25-26  we  read:  "Then  there  arose  a  question  between 
some  of  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews  about  purifying. 
And  they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him.  Rabbi,  He 
that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest 
witness,  behold,  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come 
to  Him." 

Baptizing  and  purifying  were  so  closely  related,  both 
that  of  John  and  of  Christ,  that  when  the  Jews  and  John's 
disciples  got  into  a  dispute  or  controversy  about  purifying, 
they  went  to  John  and  began  to  talk  about  baptism; 
showing  that  they  regarded  the  two  as  one  and  the  same 


148       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

thing,  whether  practiced  by  John  or  Jesus.  This  shows 
that  neither  John  nor  Jesus  had  departed  from  the  Jewish 
mode  of  baptism. 

4.  Remember  that  John  was  a  Jewish  priest  and  be- 
longed to  the  priestly  family  or  order.  Is  it  a  supposable 
case  that  he  would  depart  from  the  uniform  custom  or 
mode  of  baptism  that  had  been  practiced  throughout  the 
whole  history  of  the  priesthood  in  baptizing?  Can  we 
believe  that  if  he  had  done  so,  nothing  would  have  been 
said  about  it?  Is  it  a  supposable  case  that  in  a  land  and 
among  a  people  where  customs  never  change,  where  the 
custom  of  purifying  both  before  and  after  eating,  to  this 
day  is  the  practice  of  the  time  of  Elijah,  of  washing  the 
hands  by  pouring  water  upon  them  still  remains  un- 
changed, that  John,  a  Jewish  priest,  would  introduce  a 
radically  different  mode  of  baptism,  which  was  never 
practiced  and  was  wholly  unknown  during  the  whole 
history  of  Israel,  from  Moses  to  John  the  Baptist?  During 
this  whole  period  no  priest  ever  immersed  any  person  foj 
any  purpose  whatever. 

5.  No  Jewish  priest,  in  baptizing  or  purifying  a 
person,  ever  touched  the  unclean  person  he  purified.  If 
he  had,  he  would  have  been  defiled  by  the  touch,  and 
would  have  had  to  purify  himself  before  he  could  have 
further  performed  his  priestly  functions.  (See  Numbers 
xix.  22  and  Leviticus  xiv.  11-27.) 

The  Jews  were  so  particular,  for  fear  that  they  had 
unknowingly  touched  an  unclean  person  or  thing  while  in 
the  market-place  or  place  of  public  resort,  that  they 
would  not  eat  after  having  been  to  the  market-place  until 
they  had  first  baptized  themselves.  John  could  not  have 
put  his  hands  upon  those  whom  he  baptized,  in  such  a 
large  and  promiscuous  crowd,  without  the  danger  of  con- 
tinually contracting  defilement.     Can  we  suppose  that  a 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       149 

Jewish  priest  would  have  taken  any  such  risk?  Such  de- 
filement would  have  rendered  him  unfit  for  his  work  of 
baptizing  or  purifying  until  he  himself  could  have  been 
purified.  If  he  perchance  had  become  defiled,  every 
person  he  touched  would  have  been  defiled.  With  such 
views  of^purification,  the  liability  of  being  made  unclean 
by  the  touch  of  an  unclean  person  in  a  promiscuous 
crowd  would  utterly  forbid  John  to  touch  one  whom  he 
baptized.  This  fact  alone  is  sufiicient  to  convince  any- 
one that  John,  in  baptizing,  never  touched  any  person 
he  baptized,  and  consequently  he  never  immersed  anyone. 

I  presented  this  argument  in  a  lecture  on  "John's 
Baptism"  in  a  town  where  a  very  intelligent  physician 
lived,  who  was  raised  a  Baptist,  and  who  had  always  be- 
lieved in  immersion.  He  said  to  me  after  the  lecture: 
"I  never  thought  of  that  before;  but  it  is  true."  And  it 
convinced  him  that  John  did  not  immerse  the  people. 

6.  But  how  did  John  baptize  the  vast  multitudes 
that  he  did  unquestionably  baptize?  To  get  an  intel- 
ligent answer  to  this  question,  we  must  put  ourselves  in 
John's  place,  and  study  the  question  from  his  standpoint. 
Those  who  have  been  raised  under  immersionist  influence, 
and  have  been  taught  that  immersion  alone  is  baptism, 
will  unhesitatingly  say  he  baptized  by  immersion.  Their 
education  and  surroundings  necessarily  lead  them  to 
this  conclusion. 

But  suppose  they  had  never  seen,  known,  or  heard  of 
any  preacher  ever  immersing  anyone,  but  that  they  had 
always  seen  persons  baptized  by  the  priest  sprinkling 
the  baptizing  element  upon  the  person  baptized  by  means 
of  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  that  this  had  been  the  uniform 
custom  for  fifteen  hundred  years;  would  the  thought  of 
immersion  ever  enter  their  minds?  You  know  the  thing 
would  be  impossible.     That  was  exactly  the  situation  of 


150       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

John  and  the  people  who  came  to  his  baptism.  They 
had  never  known,  seen,  or  heard  of  anyone  being  bap- 
tized by  IMMERSION  by  any  Jewish  priest  during  the 
entire  history  of  their  nation.  But  they  had  always 
baptized  by  sprinkling  the  baptizing  element  upon  the 
person  baptized  by  means  of  a  bunch  of  hyssop.  He 
would  naturally  and  inevitably  baptize  the  multitudes 
in  the  same  way — he  could  not  have  done  otherwise. 
By  this  method  he  could  have  baptized  the  vast  mul- 
titudes who  came  to  his  baptism,  but  he  could  not  have 
done  it  in  any  other  way ;  and  all  the  circumstances  show 
that  he  did  it  in  this  way ;  not  departing  from  the  uniform 
custom  of  his  nation. 

The  people  did  not  make  a  personal  or  individual  con- 
fession of  their  sins,  but  their  act  of  submission  to  his  bap- 
tism as  a  sign  of  repentance,  was  a  confession  of  their  sins 
— that  they  were  sinners  and  needed  pardon  and  purity. 
John  did  not  baptize  them  singly — one  at  a  time.  This 
he  could  not  have  done.  John,  as  the  harbinger  of  the 
Messiah,  proclaimed  His  speedy  appearing,  and  called 
upon  the  people  to  purify  themselves  by  submitting  to 
his  baptism,  that  they  might  be  ready  for  His  coming. 
They  believed  him,  and  came  to  him  for  purification 
through  his  baptism.  They  passed  in  ranks  before  him, 
and  he  sprinki^Ed  the  purifying  waters  of  the  Jordan 
upon  them  with  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  the  uniform  method 
of  a  Jewish  priest  in  baptizing  or  purifying  the  people; 
for  we  must  not  forget  that  all  the  purifications  under  the 
law  are  called  baptisms  in  Hebrews  ix.  lo. 

At  the  institution  of  baptism  among  the  Israelites, 
Moses  baptized  the  whole  nation,  "all  the  people,"  in 
this  very  manner.  (Exodus  xxiv.  8  and  Hebrews  ix.  19; 
which  please  turn  to  and  read.)  What  better  or  higher 
authority  could  John  have  had  for  this  method  of  bap- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       151 

tizing  than  this  example  of  the  Great  Law-giver?  John 
baptized  about  as  many  people  as  Moses  did,  and  he 
could  have  baptized  them  in  this  way,  and  he  could  not 
have  done  it  in  any  other  way,  and  he  unquestionably 
did  it  in  this  way.  Now  put  yourself  in  John's  place, 
and  divest  yourself  of  all  prejudice,  and  see  if  he  could 
have  baptized  in  any  other  method.  It  would  have  been 
just  as  natural  for  John  to  have  adopted  this  method  as 
it  would  be  for  a  person  who  had  for  generations  had  an 
immersionist  ancestry,  and  had  had  it  drilled  into  him 
from  his  childhood  that  nothing  is  baptism  but  immer- 
sion, to  associate  always  in  his  mind  the  idea  of  immersion 
in  connection  with  baptism. 

But  some  immersionists  may  say:  "These  baptisms 
were  not  with  simple  water."  Some  of  them  were,  and 
some  of  them  were  with  blood,  and  some  of  them  were 
with  water  mixed  with  blood,  and  some  of  them  were 
with  water  mixed  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer.  But  God's 
Word  calls  them  all  baptisms,  and  they  were  all  per- 
formed by  sprinkling!  Dr.  Carson,  Mr.  Campbell,  and 
other  prominent  immersionists  tell  us:  "Water  is  not 
implied  in  haptidzo  at  all" — it  is  simply  a  word  of  mode, 
or  action,  it  matters  not  what  the  mode  or  action  is  into  or 
with. 

Mr.  Campbell  says:  ''Baptizo  indicates  a  specific 
action,  and  consequently,  as  such,  can  have  but  one 
meaning.  For  if  a  person  or  thing  can  be  immersed  in 
water,  oil,  milk,  honey,  sand,  earth,  debt,  grief,  affliction. 
Spirit,  light,  or  darkness,  etc.,  it  is  a  word  indicating 
specific  action,  and  specific  action  only.''  ("Christian 
Baptism,"  pp.  118-119.)  According  to  Mr.  Campbell, 
the  element  in  or  with  which  baptism  is  performed  makes 
no  difference ;  haptidzo  expresses  but  one  thing,  and  that 
thing  is  "specific  action."     In  all  the  divers  baptisms 


152       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

of  the  law  we  have  a  specific  action,  and  that  specific 
action  is  sprinkling  ! 

But  some  immersionists  may  say:  "Did  not  Jesus, 
when  He  was  baptized,  go  up  straightway  out  of  the  water, 
and  was  He  not  ther&iore:  immersed?"  I  answer:  The 
Word  of  God  does  not  say,  ''He  went  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water.''  King  James'  Translation  says  so,  but  remem- 
ber that  King  James'  Translation  was  made  .by  an  im- 
mersionist  Church,  that  would  not  permit  even  an  infant 
to  be  baptized  in  any  other  way  than  by  immersion,  un- 
less its  parents  would  certify  that  it  was  not  able  to 
endure  immersion! 

In  the  Greek  the  preposition,  both  in  Matthew  iii.  i6 
and  Mark  i.  lo,  in  the  commonly  received  text,  is  ano 
(apo),  ''from,  away  from,"  and  not  ck  (efe).  In  Mark  ek 
is  put  in  the  margin,  showing  it  was  found  in  some  man- 
uscripts. In  Tischendorf  apo  is  in  the  text  in  Matthew, 
and  ek  in  Mark ;  ek  is  in  the  text,  but  apo  is  in  the  margin, 
showing  that  it  is  in  the  text  in  many  ancient  manu- 
scripts. The  immersionists'  translation,  the  American 
Bible  Union  Translation,  translates  Matthew  iii.  i6,  "And 
Jesus,  when  He  was  immersed,  went  up  straightway 
FROM  the  water,"  translating  apo  correctly. 

In  Mark  i.  lo  they  translate:  "And  straightway 
coming  up  out  of  the  water."  Here  they  abandon  the 
commonly  received  Greek  text,  which  has  apo,  and  ek  in 
the  margin,  and  follow  Tischendorf,  which  has  ek  in  the 
text,  and  apo  in  the  margin.  But  both  have  apo  in  Mat- 
thew, and  neither  have  ek  in  the  margin.  This  shows 
that  apo  is  the  proper  reading  in  Mark;  and  that  it 
should  have  been  translated  "from." 

But  why  did  the  American  Bible  Union  translate  it 
in  Matthew  "from,"  and  in  Mark  "out  of"?  It  is  the 
very  same   transaction   referred   to   in   both   instances. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       153 

There  is  no  question  about  apo  being  the  correct  reading 
in  Matthew.  All  are  agreed  in  that.  Hence  all  are 
agreed  that  "from"  is  the  correct  translation  in  Mat- 
thew. If  "from"  is  the  correct  translation  in  Matthew, 
then  "out  of"  cannot  be  the  correct  translation  in  Mark. 
We  have  seen  that  ek  often  means  from,  away  from,  etc., 
but  apo  does  not  mean  ''out  0/";  hence,  when  these  two 
prepositions  are  used  to  express  the  same  thing,  as  in 
this  instance,  apo  must  govern  ek,  and  not  ek  govern  apo; 
hence  they  should  have  translated  Mark  "from,"  and 
made  it  harmonize  with  Matthew,  and  not  contradict  it; 
especially  should  they  have  done  this  when  there  is  no 
question  about  apo,  "from,"  being  the  correct  reading  in 
Matthew,  and  there  is  controversy  in  regard  to  ek  being 
the  correct  reading  in  Mark.  According  to  Matthew, 
Jesus  was  not  in  the  water  at  all,  and  hence  He  could  not 
have  ''come  up  out  of  it."  He  was  AT  the  water,  and 
hence  He  could  walk  away  from  it. 

But  the  question  is  asked:  "Does  not  Mark  say 
that  Jesus  was  baptized  in  Jordan,  and  does  not  that 
prove  that  He  was  immersed?"  Certainly  he  so  says; 
but  that  does  not  prove  that  He  was  immersed  any  more 
than  it  proves  that  "all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of 
Jerusalem,"  who  "were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river 
Jordan,"  were  all  immersed,  which  we  have  shown  was 
an  utter  impossibility.  Turn  and  read  again  the  defini- 
tion of  en  (in)  given  by  Liddell  and  Scott.  They  were  all 
baptized  in  the  River  Jordan,  within  its  banks,  "at"  the 
water,  but  none  of  them  were  immersed.  But  the  ob- 
jector may  say:  "Mark  uses  eis,  not  en."  That  does  not 
help  the  matter  in  the  least ;  for  Liddell  and  Scott,  as  we 
have  seen,  give  the  radical  signification  of  eis:  "direction 
towards,  motion  to,  on,  into";  and  it  is  impossible  for  our 
immersionist  friends  to  get  Jesus  into  the  water  by  the 


154       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

force  of  the  preposition  eis.  Ape  standing  in  antithesis 
to  eis  cannot  take  Him  out  of  the  water ;  it  can  only  take 
Him  away  from  the  water,  i 

But  the  objector  may  reply:  "Does  not  the  Evan- 
gelist say:  'And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon  near 
to  Salem,  because  there  was  much  water  there?'  and 
does  not  that  prove  that  he  immersed  the  people?  Why 
should  he  want  much  water,  if  it  was  not  to  immerse  the 
people  in?"  We  reply:  It  does  not  take  much  water  to 
immerse  in.  Our  immersionist  friends  can  find  a  bath- 
tub in  the  prison  at  Philippi  sufficiently  large  to  immerse 
the  jailer  and  his  household  in ;  though  there  was  no  bath- 
tub in  the  jail  except  in  their  imagination!  But  John 
could  have  had  no  reason  on  earth  for  holding  his  camp- 
meeting  at  the  Springs  or  Fountains  of  Enon  but  to  im- 
merse his  converts ! 

We  have  already  answered  this  objection  sufficiently; 
but,  at  the  risk  of  repetition,  we  will  state  the  case  again. 
John  began  his  ministry  at  Bethany,  "beyond  Jordan," 
where  there  is  nothing  said  about  water,  and  we  know 
nothing  of  its  water  supply.  As  his  popularity  increased, 
and  the  multitudes  flocked  to  his  baptism,  he  had  to  re- 
move to  the  Jordan,  that  the  multitudes  might  have  an 
abundant  supply  of  "living  water"  for  their  various  puri- 
fications and  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  life.  When 
his  popularity  began  to  wane,  and  the  attendance  upon 
his  ministry  and  baptism  grew  less,  he  removed  to  the 
more  pleasant  locality  of  the  Fountains  of  Enon,  for  its 
many  springs  (for  hudata  polla,  here  translated  "much 
water,"  is  properly  and  literally  "many  waters")  af- 
forded a  sufficient  supply  for  the  convenience  and  neces- 
sities of  those  who  came  to  his  baptism.  (See  John  iii. 
27-36.)  As  to  the  mode  or  action  of  his  baptism,  we  have 
shown  that  wherever  he  baptized,  it  was  not  by  immersion, 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       155 

but  by  the  uniform  mode  of  Jewish  baptisms,  by  sprink- 
ling by  means  of  a  bunch  of  hyssop. 

But  John  himself  tells  us  how  he  baptized.     He  de- 
clares he  baptized  with  water,  not  in  water.     Matthew 
iii.  11:     **I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repent- 
ance: but  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I, 
whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear:  He  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."     Mark  i.  8 :     "I 
indeed  have  baptized  you  with  water:  but  He  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."     Luke  iii.   16:     "John 
answered,  saying  unto  them  all,  I  indeed  baptize  you  with 
water;  but  one  mightier  than  I  cometh,  the  latchet  of 
whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose:  He  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."     John  i.  33 : 
"And  I  knew  Him  not:  but  He  that  sent  me  to  baptize 
with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me.  Upon  whom  thou 
shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  remaining  on  him, 
the  same  is  He  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
In  all  the  Evangelists,  everywhere,  John  declares  that  he 
baptized  with  water,  and  that  Christ  would  baptize  with 
the  Holy  Spirit.     Our  translators,  though  immersionists, 
and   belong   to   an   immersionist   Church,    yet   properly 
translated  en  hudati  "with  water"  every  time,  both  the 
words  of  John  and  of  Jesus,  when  speaking  of  John's  bap- 
tism or  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

\  I  know  that  our  immersionist  friends  translate  en 
hudati  and  en  pneumati  and  simple  hudati,  Luke  iii.  16, 
in  violation  of  the  rules  of  the  Greek  language  and  of  the 
positive  facts  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  case,  "in 
WATER,"  but  they  have  no  authority  for  this  violation  of 
facts  in  regard  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  we 
shall  see  presently. 

We  have  noticed  that  Greenfield  gives  with  as  the 
first  definition  of  en,  when  used  of  "cause  or  instrument." 


156       Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

Pickering  does  the  same.  He  says:  "Of  the  instrument 
or  means,  with,  by  means  of,  by,"  etc.  We  have  many 
examples  of  this  usage,  both  in  the  New  Testament  and 
the  Septuagint. 

In  Matthew  v.  34-36  the  American  Bible  Union 
Translation  and  King  James'  Translation  both  translate 
en  "by"  three  times  and  eis  "by"  once:  "But  I  say 
unto  you,  swear  not  at  all,  neither  by  {en\  heaven,  for  it  is 
God's  throne;  nor  by  [en\  the  earth,  for  it  is  His  foot- 
stool; neither  by  [eis]  Jerusalem,  for  it  is  the  city  of  the 
great  King.  Nor  shalt  thou  swear  by  [en\  thy  head,"  etc. 
In  Matthew  vii.  2  it  translates  en  "with"  twice:  "For 
WITH  [en]  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye  shall  be  judged; 
and  WITH  [en\  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured 
to  you."  In  verse  6  it  translates  en  "with"  once: 
"Lest  they  trample  them  with  [en\  their  feet,"  etc.  In 
Mark  i.  23  we  have  a  case  that  illustrates  the  two  mean- 
ings of  en  exactly:  "And  there  was  in  [en]  their  syn- 
agogue a  man  with  [en]  an  unclean  spirit."  Here  we 
have  en  used  in  both  its  significations.  These  translators 
translate  it  correctly  in  both  places.  In  regard  to  place, 
it  means  "in,"  and  they  so  translate  it,  "in  their  syn- 
agogue." But  when  it  means  "instrument,  cause, 
means,"  etc.,  they  translate  it  properly  "with." 

In  Mark  V.  2  they  translate :  "There  met  Him  out 
of  the  tombs  a  man  with  [en]  an  unclean  spirit."  In 
Luke  iv.  36  they  translate:  "What  is  this  word,  that 
with  [en]  authority  and  power  He  commands  the  un- 
clean spirits,  and  they  come  out?"  In  Revelation  ii.  27 
they  translate:  "And  He  shall  rule  them  with  [en] 
a  rod  of  iron,"  etc.  Revelation  xii.  5  they  translate: 
"And  she  brought  forth  a  man  child,  who  shall  rule  all 
nations  with  [en]  a  rod  of  iron."  Revelation  xix.  15 
they  translate:     "And  out  of  His  mouth  goes  a  sharp 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       157 

sword,  that  with  [en]  it  He  may  smite  the  nations:  and 
He  shall  rule  with  [en]  a  rod  of  iron." 

Remember  that  all  of  these  examples  are  taken  from 
the  immersionist  translation,  that  of  the  American  Bible 
Union.  We  have  selected  these  passages  at  random; 
doubtless  there  are  numerous  other  examples  which  show 
that  en,  when  used  in  the  sense  of  the  instrument,  means, 
etc.,  means  "with,"  "by,"  etc.,  and  cannot  be  translated 
"in";  for  doubtless  the  translators  of  the  American 
Bible  Union  would  have  translated  en  "in"  ever3rwhere 
it  occurs  if  they  could  have  done  so,  just  as  they  did  in 
Matthew  iii.  11,  Mark  i.  8,  and  Luke  iii.  16,  which  is  a 
positive  contradiction  of  the  Word  of  God  in  regard  to 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  we  shall  see  presently. 

The  same  usage  is  found  in  the  Septuagint,  which 
the  apostles  used  and  were  famiUar  with.  In  Leviticus 
xiv.  52  we  read:  "And  he  shall  cleanse  the  house  with 
(en)  the  blood  of  the  bird,  and  with  [en]  the  running 
water,  and  with  [en]  the  living  bird,  and  with  [en]  the 
cedar  wood,  and  with  [en]  the  hyssop,  and  with  [en]  the 
scarlet."  Here  in  one  single  verse  the  preposition  en  is 
translated  "with"  six  times. 

In  I^irst  Chronicles  xv.  28  we  read:  "Thus  all  Is- 
rael brought  up  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord 
with  [en]  shouting,  and  with  [en]  sound  of  cornet,  and 
WITH  [en]  trumpets,  and  making  a  noise  with  [en]  psal- 
teries, and  WITH  [e7i]  harps."  Here  again  we  have  en 
translated  "with"  six  times  in  one  verse.  In  the  last 
instance  in  our  translation  the  en  is  omitted  before 
"harps,"  but  it  is  in  the  Greek. 

We  might  multiply  examples,  but  surely  these  are 
sufficient  to  prove  to  every  thoughtful  mind  that  en,  used 
in  the  sense  of  instrument  or  means,  is  properly  trans- 
lated "with,"  and  not  "in."    Now,  why  did  the  American 


158       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

Bible  Union  translators  translate  en  "in"  in  all  the  pas- 
sages where  it  occurs  in  connection  with  baptism,  when  it 
is  used  in  the  instrumental  sense,  and  "with,"  "by,"  etc., 
in  all  the  other  cases  of  its  use  in  the  instrumental  sense? 
It  was  necessary  for  them  to  do  it  to  sustain  their  cause. 
But  can  any  cause  be  sustained  by  such  a  course  ?  Does 
truth  require  falsehood  to  sustain  it?  Why  did  they 
violate  every  rule  of  the  Greek  language,  and  translate 
''hudati,  the  simple  dative,  "in  water,"  in  Luke  iii.  16? 
Surely  truth  does  not  require  such  methods  of  defense. 

Their  translation  of  Matthew  iii.  11  reads:  "I  in- 
deed immerse  you  in  water  unto  repentance ;  but  He  that 
comes  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  sandals  I  am 
not  worthy  to  bear:  He  shall  immerse  you  in  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  fire."  Mark  i.  8  reads:  "I  indeed  immersed 
you  in  water,  but  He  shall  immerse  you  in  the  Holy 
Spirit."  IvUke  iii.  16  they  translate:  "I  indeed  im- 
merse you  in  water :  but  there  comes  He  that  is  mightier 
han  I,  the  latchet  of  whose  sandals  I  am  not  worthy  to 
unloose,  He  will  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire." 
Now  I  say  that  this  translation  states  what  is  not  TruK  ! 
Jesus  never  immkrskd  "in  thk  Holy  Spirit  and  fire." 
He  baptized  "with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire,"  but  He 
never  "immersed  in  The  Holy  Spirit."  The  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  declared  to  be  performed  by 
"pouring  out,"  "falling  on,"  "shedding  forth,"  etc., 
but  never  by  being  immkrsEd! 

The  American  Bible  Union  translators  translate  Acts 
i.  5:  "For  John  indeed  immersed  in  water,  but  ye  shall 
be  IMMERSED  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  many  days  hence." 
This  is  not  true;  and  how  any  set  of  Christian  scholars 
could  make  such  a  translation,  with  all  the  facts  before 
them,  I  cannot  understand.  Our  immersionist  friends 
contend  that  there  have  been  but  two  examples  of  the 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,       159 

baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
Church — that  of  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  of  the  house- 
hold of  Cornelius.  We  ask,  What  was  the  mode  of  these 
baptisms?  Fortunately,  we  have  the  full  history  of  both 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  I  will  give  the  history  of 
these  baptisms  as  recorded  in  the  Bible  Union  Translation. 
In  Acts  ii.  1-3  we  read :  "And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost 
was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place. 
And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  out  of  heaven  as  of  a 
rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  to  them  tongues 
as  of  fire,  distributed  among  them;  and  it  sat  upon  each 
of  them."  Here  was  the  baptism  of  fire.  Verse  4: 
"And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  began 
to  speak  with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  ut- 
terance."    Here  was  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  the  objector  may  say:  "Was  not  this  an  im- 
mersion? Does  it  not  say  that  'iT  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  were  sitting,'  and  was  not  that  an  immer- 
sion?" Yes,  "iT  filled  all  the  house";  but  what  was  iT 
that  filled  the  house?  It  was  the  sound!  "Sound"  is 
the  antecedent  to  "it,"  and  not  the  Holy  Spirit.  Jesus 
did  not  say,  "Ye  shall  be  immersed  in  sound,  not  many 
days  hence";  but  He  said,  "Ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  not  many  days  hence." 

How  was  this  baptism  performed?  What  was  its 
mode  or  action?  Let  Peter  answer  this  question.  In 
verses  16-18  he  says:  "But  this  is  what  was  spoken 
through  the  prophet  Joel:  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in 
the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit 
upon  all  flesh;  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall 
prophesy,  and  your  young  men  shall  see  visions,  and  your 
old  men  shall  dream  dreams:  and  even  on  my  servants 
and  on  my  handmaids  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  in 


i6o       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

those  days,  and  they  shall  prophesy."  Here  is  the  mode 
of  the  baptism  of  Pentecost.  In  verses  32  and  33  he  says : 
"This  same  Jesus  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  all  are  wit- 
nesses. Being  therefore  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of 
God,  and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  He  pourBd  forth  this,  which  ye  now 
see  and  hear."  The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  was  performed  by  pouring  out — 
POURING  FORTH  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  hundred  and 
twenty  in  the  upper  room  in  Jerusalem.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  as  to  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  baptism  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.     It  was  pouring,  and  not  immejrsion. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  other  example  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  our  immersionist  friends  tell  us 
took  place  in  the  apostolic  age :  the  baptism  of  the  house- 
hold of  Cornelius  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  history  of  it 
is  given  in  Acts  x.  44-45  and  xi.  15-16.  Acts  x.  44-45 
reads  (American  Bible  Union  Translation) :  "While  Peter 
was  yet  speaking  these  words,  the  Holy  Spirit  FHLiv  on 
all  who  heard  the  word.  And  they  of  the  circumcision 
who  believed,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  were  aston- 
ished, that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was  pourKd  out  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Spirit."  This  was  a  most  singular  case  of 
IMMERSION — an  immersion  performed  by  pouring  out 
and  FALiyiNG  ON !  We  certainly  would  not  object  to  such 
an  IMMERSION  as  this.  In  Acts  xi.  15-16  Peter  himself 
gives  an  account  of  this  baptism.  He  says:  "And  as  I 
began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Spirit  FELi^  on  them,  as  also  on 
us  at  the  beginning;  and  I  remembered  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  how  He  said:  John  indeed  immersed  in  water, 
but  ye  shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  Was  it 
not  strange  indeed  that  Peter  seeing  the  Holy  Spirit 
FALUNG  ON  THEM,  as  he  saw  Him  fall  on  the  hundred 
and  twenty  "at  the  beginning,"  should  think  of  immer- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       i6i 

SiON?  Would  POURING  OUT,  FALLING  ON  iti  baptism  sug- 
gest to  the  mind  of  an  immersionist  the  promise  of  our 
Lord  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  This  translation 
shows  the  absurdity  of  the  position  of  immersionists  in 
regard  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  hardly  any- 
thing else  could.  This  case  is  vital  to  our  immersionist 
friends;  and  they  are  willing  to  run  into  any  absurdity 
to  save  it;  for  if  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  these 
occasions  was  not  by  immersion,  then  John  did  not  bap- 
tize by  immersion,  and  their  whole  theory  is  overturned. 
No  wonder  they  make  such  tremendous  efforts  to  make 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  an  immersion  in  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  the  plain  statements  of  the  Word  of  God 
are  against  them.  In  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
there  is  no  immersion,  but  there  is  pouring  out,  shed- 
ding FORTH,  FALLING  ON.  No  ingenuity  on  the  part  of 
immersionists  can  break  the  force  of  these  plain  state- 
ments of  the  Word  of  God,  and  they  forever  scatter  the 
claims  of  the  advocates  of  immersion  to  the  four  winds. 

John  baptized  with  water  the  same  way  Christ  bap- 
tized WITH  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  did  the  same  thing 
Christ  did;  the  only  difiference  was  in  the  element  used. 
He  used  water;  Christ  used  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  mode 
or  ACTION  was  the  same. 

Remember  Mr.  Campbell  says:  ''Baptize  indicates 
a  specific  action^  and  consequently,  as  such,  can  have  but 
one  meaning.  For  if  a  person  or  thing  be  immersed  in 
water,  oil,  milk,  honey,  sand,  earth,  debt,  grief,  affliction. 
Spirit,  hght,  or  darkness,"  etc.,  it  is  a  word  indicating 
specific  action,  and  specific  action  only."  ("Christian 
Baptism,"  pp.  118-119.) 

If  Mr.  Campbell  is  right,  that  baptidzo  is  a  word  of 
"specific  action,  and  specific  action  only,"  when  we 
prove  what  "specific  action"  it  expresses  in  one  place, 


1 62      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

we  prove  what  "speJCiFic  action"  it  expresses  in  every 
place  where  it  is  used.  He  tells  us  the  element  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  "specific  action  "  of  the  word,  whether  it  is 
WATER  or  Spirit.  We  have  proved  that  the ' '  specific  ac- 
tion" expressed  by  baptidzo,  applied  to  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  is  pouring  out,  falung  on,  shedding  forth. 
According  to  Mr.  Campbell,  we  have  proved  that  the 
"specific  action"  of  baptism  is  pouring  out,  falling 
ON,  SHEDDING  FORTH.  We  have  thus  proved,  beyond 
the  possibility  of  a  reasonable  quibble  or  doubt,  Mr. 
Campbell  himself  being  judge,  that  the  Scriptural  mode 
or  ACTION  of  BAPTISM  is  POURING.  John's  baptism  set- 
tles the  question  of  the  mode  or  action  of  baptism  ;  for  if 
John  did  not  immerse,  immersion  is  not  taught,  nor  was  it 
practiced  in  the  New  Testament.  John  did  not  baptize 
by  immersion.  That  is  as  certain  as  anything  can  be 
proven.  Therefore  immersion  is  not  taught  in  the  New 
Testament,  nor  was  it  practiced  by  the  apostles. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Apostolic  Baptism. 

The  first  baptism  under  the  great  commission  was 
that  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  narrative  to  indicate  the  viode  of 
this  baptism.     But  it  is  noteworthy  that  all  of  the  apos- 
tolic baptisms  took  place  on  the  spot.     There  is  no  ac- 
count of  any  delay  in  any  of  these  baptisms,  in  order  to 
hunt  up  water  sufficient  to  immerse  in,  nor  any  delay  in 
preparation  for  baptism,  such  as  is  necessary  in  all  im- 
mersionist   churches.     Baptism   was   so   simple   that   it 
could  be  administered  anywhere,  and  without  any  delay 
or  any  preparation.     This  is  a  fact  that  strikes  us  in  all 
the  apostolic  baptisms.     Such  a  thing  is  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  Jmmersion. 

In  this  case,  as  in  many  of  the  other  New  Testament 
baptisms,  the  circumstances  are  all  against  the  idea  of 
immersion.  It  took  place  in  Jerusalem,  where  there  was 
no  stream  in  or  near  the  city  large  enough  for  the  purpose 
of  immersion.  The  city  was  supplied  with  water  by  a 
system  of  reservoirs  or  pools,  whose  waters  were  con- 
veyed to  the  city  by  pipes  or  aqueducts  several  miles  from 
the  city.  These  pools  or  reservoirs  were  fed  by  springs 
or  winter  torrents  that  were  dry  through  the  summer 
season.  The  wealthy  citizens  of  the  city  also  built  large 
cisterns  to  secure  water  during  the  rainy  season  for  their 
own  private  use.  These  could  not  be  used  for  the  pur- 
pose of  immersion.  The  people  would  not  have  allowed 
their  private  water  supply,  on  which  they  depended  for 

163 


164       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

their  daily  use  for  cooking  and  drinking  purposes  and  for 
their  daily  purifications,  to  be  defiled  in  such  a  manner. 
Besides  all  this,  these  cisterns  could  not  have  been  utilized 
for  the  purpose  of  immersion,  for  there  was  no  way  to  get 
into  or  out  of  them,  any  more  than  there  is  in  our  modern 
cisterns,  and  they  were  too  deep  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
mersion. They  might  have  been  used  for  drowning 
people,  but  not  for  immersing  them. 

But  our  immersionist  friends  ask,  *  'What  about  those 
large  pools  or  reservoirs  you  spoke  about  in  or  near  the 
city?  Would  they  not  furnish  an  abundant  supply  for 
the  purpose  of  immersion?"  Certainly,  they  contained 
sufficient  water  to  furnish  all  the  facilities  for  immersion. 
But  could  they  be  utilized  for  that  purpose?  Remember, 
these  pools  contained  the  water  supply  of  the  city,  for 
drinking,  cooking,  purification,  and  all  the  ordinary  pur- 
poses of  life.  And  would  the  city  authorities,  who  were 
the  bitter  enemies  of  the  apostles,  and  who  had  so  re- 
cently put  their  Master  to  death,  have  permitted  them  to 
thus  defile  the  water  supply  of  the  city?  The  thing  is 
not  supposable — hardly  thinkable,  except  by  an  immer- 
sionist hard  pressed  to  find  water  sufficient  to  immerse 
the  three  thousand  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
Besides,  those  pools  were  walled  up  with  solid  masonry 
from  twenty  to  thirty  feet  deep,  with  no  way  to  get  into 
them  for  the  purpose  of  immersion.  Those  pools  must 
be  abandoned. 

"But  did  not  the  blind  man  [John  ix.  7]  go  wash  in 
the  Pool  of  Siloam?"  Yes.  But  did  he  ^'mmeri-g  himself 
in  it?  He  simply  dipped  his  hands  in  the  water,  and 
washed  the  clay  from  his  eyes.  Jesus  said  to  him:  "Go 
wash"  (nipsai).  The  Pool  of  Siloam  is  one  of  the  smaller 
reservoirs  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem,  just  outside  the 
wall,  "and  53  feet  long,  18  feet  broad,  and  19  feet  deep." 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       165 

(McClintock  and  Strong's  Cyclopedia,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  744.) 
This,  like  all  the  other  and  larger  pools,  was  made  of  solid 
masonry.  The  idea  of  immersion  in  any  of  these  pools 
is  utterly  out  of  the  question.  Like  the  cisterns,  they 
would  have  done  to  drown  men  in,  but  not  to  immerse 
them. 

Another  fact  should  not  be  forgotten  in  connection 
with  the  baptism  of  Pentecost.  The  promise  of  the  Savior, 
"Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many 
days  hence,"  had  just  been  fulfilled.  That  divine  bap- 
tism, which  is  the  real  baptism,  had  just  been  performed 
by  POURING.  Would  not  this  have  suggested  to  the 
minds  of  the  apostles  the  idea  of  following  the  divine 
mode  in  administering  the  symbolical  baptism  ?  Would  it 
not  have  fully  explained  what  Jesus  meant  by  the  term 
"baptism"?  What  could  they  do  but  follow  the  ex- 
ample of  their  ascended  Lord  and  Master,  and  baptize 
the  people  as  He  did,  by  pouring  the  water  upon  them? 
This  would  have  been  the  most  natural  thing  for  them  to 
do,  and  they  unquestionably  did  it. 

Remember  that  these  men  were  all  Jews;  that  bap- 
tism had  been  practiced  among  them  from  the  birth  of 
their  nation;  and  that  not  in  a  single  instance  in  all  the 
history  of  Jewish  baptisms  did  ever  the  administrator, 
whether  priest,  prophet,  or  layman,  administer  baptism 
by  immersion.  No  instance  occurs  in  all  the  history  of 
Jewish  baptisms,  where  one  man  ever  immersed  another 
for  baptism  or  purification.  They  always  baptized  by 
SPRINKLING.  If  there  was  a  general  washing  of  the  body 
after  the  baptism,  it  was  done  by  the  person  baptized, 
and  was  no  part  of  the  baptism.  Is  it  a  supposable  case, 
that  these  Jews  would  have  departed  from  the  uniform 
practice  of  their  nation,  and  disregarded  the  example  just 
set  them  by  the  Lord  himself  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 


/ 
/ 


1 66       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

Spirit,  and  gone  to  immersing  the  people,  even  if  the 
faciUties  for  immersion  had  been  present?  Let  him  be- 
lieve such  an  absurdity  who  can ;  I  cannot. 

Dr.  WiLi^iAM  Smith,  who  leans  largely  towards  im- 
mersion as  the  common  practice  of  the  ancient  Church, 
in  his  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  says:  "But  in  the  case  of 
the  jailer  at  Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  33)  and  of  the  three 
thousand  converted  at  Pentecost  (Acts  ii.  41),  it  seems 
hardly  likely  that  immersion  should  have  been  possible.'* 

The  argument  here  holds  good  for  all  the  multitudes 
baptized  in  Jerusalem  immediately  after  Pentecost,  for 
soon  the  Church  there  numbered  five  thousand;  and 
Luke  tells  us  (Acts  v.  14) :  "And  believers  were  the  more 
added  to  the  Lord,  multitudes  both  of  men  and  women." 
We  have  no  account  of  their  baptism,  but  we  know  they 
were  baptized. 

The  next  example  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament 
is  the  baptism  of  the  Samaritans  by  Philip.  There  is 
nothing  said  about  water  in  this  case,  and  there  is  nothing 
in  the  circumstances  to  indicate  anything  in  regard  to 
mode;  so  nothing  can  be  learned  as  to  mode  from  this  case. 

The  next  example  from  the  New  Testament  is  the 
baptism  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  by  Philip  (Acts  viii. 
36-39):  "And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came 
unto  a  certain  water:  and  the  eunuch  said.  See,  here  is 
water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?  And 
Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And  he  commanded  the 
chariot  to  stand  still:  and  they  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch ;  and  he  baptized  him. 
And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,  that  the  eunuch  saw  him 
no  more:  and  he  went  on  his  way  rejoicing." 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      167 

This  case   is   regarded  by   immersionists   as   proof 
positive  of  immersion;  and  yet  to  use  it  is  the  strongest 
proof  possible  that  immersion  was  not  the  practice  of  the 
apostles.     "But,"  the  objector  asks,  "does  not  Luke  say, 
'And  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  PhiUp 
and  the  eunuch;  and  he  baptized  him'?     And  does  he 
not  say,  'And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water'  ? 
And  does  not  this  prove  that  Philip  immersed  him?" 
Yes,  Luke  says  all  this,  according  to  our  translation;  but 
this  does  not  prove  that  Philip  immersed  the  eunuch. 
All  this  might  have  been  done  and  no  immersion  follow. 
The  going  down  into  the  water  and  the  coming  up  out  of 
the  water  did  not  constitute  the  baptism.     The  baptism 
took  place  between  the  going  down  and  the  coming  up. 
According  to  Luke's  account,  there  were  three  things  done, 
separate  and  distinct  from  each  other:     (i)  "And  they 
went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
eunuch;"  (2)  "And  he  baptized  him;"  (3)  "And  when 
they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water."     A  child  can  see 
that  the  "going  down  into  the  water"  and  the  "coming 
up  out  of  the  water"  cannot  determine  the  mode  of  the 
baptism  which  took  place  between  these  acts.     To  get  an 
immersion  in  this  case,  the  immersionists  must  fall  back 
on  the  specific  meaning  of  baptidzo,  which  we  have  proved 
is  a  myth,  and  has  no  existence  except  in  the  muddled 
brain  of  an  immersionist.     I  have  taken  a  candidate  for 
baptism,  and  we  have  literally  gone  down,  both  of  us, 
into  the  water,  and  I  have  baptized  him,  and  we  have 
both  come  up  out  of  the  water ;  and  yet  I  baptized  him 
by  dipping  up  the  water  in  my  right  hand  and  pouring  it 
on  his  head.     Philip  may  have  done  the  same  thing. 
Who  can  say  he  did  not? 

But  the  circumstantialness  of  the  narrative  in  this 
case  shows  that  this  did  not  ordinarily  occur  in  baptism; 


1 68      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

that  this  was  something  extraordinary — so  much  so  that 
Luke  deemed  it  necessary  to  mention  the  fact.  If  in  every 
case  where  baptism  was  administered  during  the  apos- 
toUc  age  both  the  administrator  and  the  person  baptized 
had  gone  "down  into  the  water,  and  had  both  come  up 
out  of  the  water,"  as  was  the  case  if  immersion  was  prac- 
ticed, why  should  Luke  mention  a  fact  in  this  ^ase  which 
everyone  knew  was  the  custom  in  every  baptism?  It 
must  be  clear  to  every  thoughtful  mind,  that  if  immersion 
was  the  practice,  and  this  occurred  in  every  baptism,  it 
would  not  and  could  not  have  been  mentioned  here. 
Who  would  think  of  mentioning  the  fact  of  both  "going 
down  into  the  water"  in  giving  an  account  of  a  baptism 
performed  by  an  immersionist?  especially  if  no  one  had 
ever  seen  or  heard  of  a  baptism  where  they  did  not  both 
"go  down  into  the  water,"  and  both  "come  up  out  of  the 
water."  This  statement  in  the  history  of  the  baptism  of 
the  eunuch  proves  conclusively  that  this  was  not  the  or- 
dinary practice.  In  the  history  of  all  the  baptisms  re- 
corded in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Luke  mentions  this 
circumstance  but  once,  which  proves  that  this  was  the 
only  case  in  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  Acts  where 
"they  both  went  down  into  the  water."  Looked  at  in  its 
true  light,  this  is  the  strongest  evidence  possible  to  prove 
that  immersion  was  not  the  practice  of  the  apostolic 
Church. 

"But,"  the  objector  may  ask,  "does  not  this  prove 
that  we  have  at  least  one  case  of  immersion  in  the  New 
Testament?"  We  answer:  Not  by  any  means.  Neither 
Philip  nor  the  eunuch  went  "down  into  the  water"  at 
all.  Remember,  King  James'  Translation  was  made  by 
an  immersionist  Church,  and  it  is  always  favorable  to 
immersion  wherever  possible. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      169 

Prof.  Moses  Stuart,  of  Andover,  makes  larger  con- 
cessions to  immersionists  than  any  other  writer  on  our 
side  of  this  controversy;  so  much  so  that  Dr.  J.  R.  Graves 
in  1855  pubUshed  an  edition  of  Stuart  on  "Baptism," 
and  circulated  it  as  an  immersionist  document.  I  have 
Graves'  edition,  and  quote  from  it.  Prof.  Stuart  says  on 
this  case : 

"The  passage  which  my  present  purpose  leads  me 
next  to  examine  is  Acts  8:36-39.  Philip  expounded 
to  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  the  Scriptures  respecting  the 
Messiah,  and  he  was  moved  to  believe  in  the  Savior  who 
was  presented  to  him.  As  Philip  and  his  new  disciple 
journeyed  on  together,  they  came,  says  the  writer,  ktri  tI 
vSoyp  [epi  ti  hudor],  to  a  certain  water.  What  kind?  A 
rivulet,  river,  spring,  pool,  or  what?  If  the  answer  be  a 
brook  or  river,  then  the  sense  put  upon  vSara  TroXXa  [hudata 
polla]  in  the  paragraph  above  is,  of  course,  conceded  that 
such  a  sense  may  be  given  to  vSara  [hudata]  as  has  here 
been  assigned  to  it.  If  the  answer  be  to  a  spring,  fount- 
ain, or^pool  of  water,  then  again  it  is  conceded  that  vSo)p 
[hudor]  designates  something  besides  the  mere  element  of 
water.  The  use  of  tI  [ti]  here  of  necessity  implies  vSwp 
[hudor]  must  be  either  a  stream,  or  a  fountain,  or  a  pool 
of  water. 

"I  acknowledge  myself  unable  to  determine,  with 
any  good  degree  of  certainty,  which  of  these  is  meant. 
Yet  I  think  the  probability  to  be  that  it  was  a  fountain 
of  water.  I  draw  this  conclusion  rather  from  the  ge- 
ography of  the  country  than  from  the  principles  of  phil- 
ology. There  is  indeed  a  river  with  branches  between 
Jerusalem  and  Gaza;  yet  it  runs  not  through  the  desert, 
but  through  the  inhabited  country;  for  rivers  in  the  east 
make  habitable  places.  There  is  another  river  south  of 
Gaza.  But  the  place  where  Philip  met  the  eunuch  was 
—12— 


1 70      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

the  desert  between  Jerusalem  and  this  place.  (Acts  8 : 
27.)  I  must  therefore  think  the  rl  v8(op  [ti  hudor]  in  Acts 
8 :  36  to  be  a  spring  or  pool  of  water. 

"Such  a  collection  of  water  is  usually,  of  course,  in 
some  valley  or  ravine.  Hence  it  is  said  in  verse  38, 
'They  went  down  cts  to  vSoip'  [eis  to  hudor],  *  To  the  water,* 
as  some  would  render  it,  or  'into  the  water,'  as  others 
would  insist  it  should  be  translated.  Does  ei?  [eis]  in  this 
case  admit  of  either  sense?  and  which  is  to  be  preferred? 

"That  ci?  [eis]  with  the  verb  Kara^aiVw  [katabaino], 
which  is  used  in  Acts  8 138  often  means  going  down  to  a 
place  is  quite  certain;  e.  g.,  John  2:12,  Jesus  went  down 
TO  (ct?)  Capernaum;  Acts  7:15,  Jacob  went  down  To  (cts) 
Egypt;  Acts  14:25,  They  went  down  To  (cis)  Attalia; 
Acts  16:8,  They  went  down  to  (ets)  Troas;  Acts  18:22, 
He  went  down  To  (eis)  Antioch;  Acts  25:6,  Going  down 
TO  (cis)  Caesarea;  compare  Luke  10:30,  18:14;  Acts  8:26, 
et  al.  So  common  indeed  is  this  meaning  of  els,  when  it 
designates  direction  to  a  place  or  towards  it,  that  Bret- 
schneider  has  given  this  as  its  first  and  leading  significa- 
tion. But  I  have  confined  my  examples  to  its  connection 
with  Kara/SaLvo)  [katahaino]. 

"On  the  other  hand,  I  find  one  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  when  it  seems  to  mean  into  with  the  verb 
Kara/SaCvdi  [katahaino].  This  is  in  Rom.  10:7:  'Who  shall 
go  down  CIS  a/iva-arov'  [eis  abusson],  'into  the  abyss?' 
Even  here  the  sense  to  is  good.  And,  in  fact,  when  one 
analyzes  the  idea  of  KaraySatvwv  [katabainon],  going  down, 
descending,  he  finds  that  it  indicates  the  action  per- 
formed before  reaching  a  place,  the  approximation  to  it 
by  descent,  real  or  supposed,  and  not  entering  into  it. 
*EL<repxofmL  [Eiserchomai]  is  the  appropriate  word  for  enter- 
ing into;  or,  rather,  in  distinction  from  KarajSatvoj  [kata- 
haino], ifJiPaLvu)[embaino]  is  the  appropriate  word  to  signify 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      171 

entrance  into  any  place  or  thing.  Hence  I  must  conclude, 
on  the  whole,  that  although  in  several  of  the  above  cases 
of  KaraPaivoi  [katabaiuo]  with  els  [eis]  we  may  translate  ets 
[eis]  by  into,  and  still  make  good  sense  in  English,  yet  the 
real  and  appropriate  signification  of  this  phraseology  in 
the  New  Testament  seems  plainly  to  be  going  down  To  a 
place.  Kara/Jatvo)  [Katabaino]  designates  the  action  per- 
formed in  order  to  arrive  there  by  descending,  in  any 
sense;  and  not  the  action  of  entering  into  the  place  to 
which  one  has  gone  down,  although  this  may  sometimes 
be  included  by  popular  diction. 

"I  must  come,  then,  to  the  conclusion,  that  KaTi/Srja-av 
afx<f>6TepoL  €15  TO  v8(i)p  [katebeesan  amphoteroi  eis  to  hudor]  in 
Acts  8 :38  does  neither  necessarily  nor  probably  mean,  'They 
DESCEJNDKD  INTO  THE  WATER.'  This  conclusion  is  rendered 
nearly  certain  by  the  exact  counterpart  or  antithesis  of 
this  expression,  which  is  found  in  verse  39,  where,  after 
the  baptism,  it  is  said,  'avef^rjaav  Ik  tov  -uSaros'  l^anebeesan  ek 
touhudatos'],  'they  went  up  from  the  water.'  We  have 
seen  (page  320)  that  dva^acvwlanabaino]  is  never  employed 
in  the  sense  of  emerging  from  a  liquid  substance.  The 
preposition  ck  [ek]  here  would  agree  well  with  this  idea, 

AIvTHOUGH  IT  BY  NO  MEANS  OF  NECESSITY  IMPLIES  IT ;  but 

dmjSatVw  [anabaino]  forbids  thus  to  construe  it.  As  then  to 
go  up  FROM  the  water  is  to  ascend  the  bank  of  a  stream, 
pool,  or  fountain,  so  to  go  down  To  the  water  is  to  go 
down  the  bank  of  such  stream,  fountain,  or  pool,  and  to 
come  TO  the  water.  Whether  the  person  thus  going 
down  els  TO  vBiop  [eis  to  hudor]  enters  it  or  not  must  be 
designated  in  some  other  way  than  by  this  expression, 
which  of  itself  leaves  the  matter  in  uncertainty. 

"I  have  another  remark  to  make  on  VareyST/o-av  a/xcf>6Tepoi 
els  rb  v8wp'  ['katebeesan  amphoteroi  eis  to  hudor'],  'they  both 
went  down  to  the  water.*     This  is,  that  if  Kare^rjaav  els  to 


172       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

vSu)p  [katebeesan  eis  to  hudor]  is  meant  to  designate  the  action 
of  plunging  or  being  immersed  into  the  water,  as  a  part 
of  the  rite  of  baptism,  then  was  PhiHp  baptized  as  well  as 
the  eunuch;  for  the  sacred  writer  says  they  both  went 
into  the  water.  Here,  then,  must  have  been  a  rebaptism 
of  Philip;  and,  what  is  at  least  singular,  he  must  have 
baptized  himself  as  well  as  the  eunuch. 

"All  these  considerations  together  show  that  the 
going  down  to  the  water  and  the  going  up  from  the  water 
constituted  no  part  of  the  rite  of  baptism  itself;  for 
Philip  did  the  one  and  the  other  just  as  truly  as  the 
eunuch.  As,  then,  neither  the  language  allows  us  to  con- 
strue the  passage  as  signifying  immersion  and  emersion, 
nor  the  circumstances  permit  us  to  interpret  the  passage 
thus,  we  have  no  good  and  sufficient  grounds  here  to  con- 
sider this  example  as  making  any  determination  with  re- 
spect to  the  mode  of  the  baptismal  rite."  (Stuart  on 
"Baptism,"  pp.  94,  95,  96,  97.) 

This  is  pretty  good  from  a  book  published  by  Dr. 
Graves,  and  circulated  as  an  immersion  document! 
Here  remark  that  this  great  Greek  scholar  says:  "As, 
then,  neither  the  language  allows  us  to  construe  the  pas- 
sage as  signifying  immersion  and  emersion,  nor  the  cir- 
cumstances permit  us  to  interpret  the  passage  thus,"  etc. 
This  great  author,  who  stands  so  high  in  the  estimation 
of  our  immersionist  friends,  declares  "that  neither  the 
language  nor  the  circumstances  permit  us  to  interpret 
this  passage"  as  favoring  immersion! 

The  plain  facts  in  the  case  are  these:  Here  is  a  de- 
vout heathen  riding  along  the  road,  reading  the  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  concerning  Christ.  A  preacher  of  the  gospel  is 
walking  along  the  same  road.  The  Holy  Spirit  com- 
mands him  to  go  and  join  himself  to  the  chariot  in  which 


TJie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      173 

this  devout  heathen  is  riding.  He  asks  the  preacher  to 
explain  to  him  what  he  is  reading.  The  preacher  pro- 
ceeds to  do  this,  and  to  preach  Christ  to  him.  He  ac- 
cepts Christ  as  his  Savior;  and  then  the  preacher  evi- 
dently explains  the  subject  of  baptism  to  him.  As  they 
drive  along  they  come  to  "a  certain  water."  What  kind 
of  "a  water"  we  do  not  know,  nor  do  we  care.  It  may 
have  been  a  stream,  a  pool,  or  a  fountain.  We  do  not 
care  whether  there  was  much  or  little  water.  It  does  not 
take  "much  water"  to  baptize  in  any  mode.  And  he 
says:  "See,  here  is  water,"  or,  "See  water;  what  doth 
hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  Showing  that  baptism  had 
been  spoken  of  and  explained  to  him  by  the  preacher. 
He  orders  the  driver  to  stop  the  chariot,  and  they  both 
get  out  and  go  down  to  the  water,  and  the  preacher  bap- 
tizes him.  Doubtless  he  kneels  down,  and  the  preach- 
er dips  up  the  water  with  his  right  hand  and  pours 
or  sprinkles  the  water  on  his  head,  and  they  come  up 
from  the  water,  and  the  preacher  is  "caught  away  by 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,"  and  the  man  goes  on  his  way 
rejoicing. 

This  is  what  any  Methodist  preacher  would  do  under 
like  circumstances.  No  preparation  is  made  for  immer- 
sion; no  change  of  clothes  either  before  or  after  the  bap- 
tism, as  that  would  have  been  necessary  only  in  case  of 
immersion. 

Don't  forget  that  this  is  the  only  instance  in  the  New 
Testament  where  it  is  said  "they  both  went  down  to  the 
water,"  and  under  the  circumstances  that  was  the  most 
natural  thing  to  do. 

In  confirmation  of  Prof.  Stuart's  position  that  *'kata- 
baino  eis"  could  mean  no  more  than  "going  down  to  the 
water,"  remember  lyiddell  and  Scott's  definition  of  eU 
(eis) :     *  *  Radical   signification,   direction  towards,  motion 


174      Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

to,  on,  or  into,''  putting  ''motion  to''  first,  in  accord 
with  its  radical  signification,  "dirKCTion  towards." 
Pickering  gives  it  the  same  signification.  Liddell  and 
Scott  is  but  an  English  translation  of  the  great  German 
Passow;  so  Prof.  Stuart  is  sustained  by  the  highest  au- 
thority. It  is  thus  proved  that  the  expression  ''kata- 
baino  eis"  exhausts  itself  when  it  takes  the  person  'Ho 
the  water,"  and  not  "into  it."  Our  interpretation  thus 
stands  beyond  impeachment. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  in  the  same  prophecy 
from  which  the  eunuch  was  reading,  and  only  eight  verses 
before  the  one  he  was  reading,  it  is  said  of  the  Christ: 
"So  shall  He  sprinkliS  many  nations."  (Isaiah  lii.  15.) 
We  know  that  Philip  had  explained  baptism  to  the 
eunuch,  and  in  the  text  from  which  he  was  preaching  he 
found  sprinkle,  and  that  the  Messiah  should  sprinkle  the 
nations.  This  is  certainly  a  reference  to  baptism,  and 
Philip  preached  baptism  to  him  from  a  text  that  declared 
he  should  sprinklk  the  nations!  The  baptism  preached 
was  sprinkling,  and  the  baptism  practiced  was  the  same. 
It  would  have  been  strange  indeed  if  Philip  had  preached 
baptism  by  sprinkling,  and  then  turned  around  im- 
mediately and  practiced  it  by  immersion  ! 

But  our  immersionist  friends  tell  us  that  the  word 
translated  "sprinkle"  in  this  passage  means  "to  astonish," 
and  is  so  translated  in  the  Septuagint.  It  is  true  that 
the  Septuagint  translates  nazah  "to  astonish,  or  amaze," 
in  Isaiah  lii.  15;  but  we  cannot  correct  the  original  He- 
brew by  an  imperfect  Greek  translation.  This  word  is 
used  many  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  is  translated 
"sprinkIvK"  in  every  other  example  of  its  use,  and  is 
translated  "sprinkle"  here  in  our  English  translation. 
Dr.  Rice,  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Campbell,  says:  "But 
the  fact  is  stated  by  the  Rev.  A.  Barnes,  after  careful  ex- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      175 

amination  of  all  the  places  in  which  the  Hebrew  word 
translated  'sprinkle'  occurs  in  the  Bible,  that  in  every 
instance  it  means  to  sprinki^e."  ("Rice  and  Campbell 
Debate,"  p.  226.) 

Paul's  Baptism. 

The  next  example  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament 
that  we  will  examine  is  that  of  Paul,  Acts  ix.  18:  "And 
immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales ; 
and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was 
baptized. 

According  to  this  account,  Paul  was  baptized  in  the 
house,  standing  up.  There  was  no  leaving  the  house, 
and  running  out  to  the  rivers  Abana  or  Pharpar,  and  no 
preparation  for  change  of  clothing  preparatory  to  immer- 
sion, but  a  simple  "standing  up"  while  the  baptism  was 
performed.  All  the  circumstances  here  are  against  the 
idea  of  immersion  and  in  favor  of  affusion.  No  torturing 
of  this  passage  can  make  it  mean  anything  else  than  what 
it  says:  "Paul  stood  up  and  was  baptized."  The  word 
avadTCLs  (anastas),  here  translated  "arise,"  means  to  "stand 
up,  arise,"  etc.  The  commonly  received  text  reads :  *  'irapa- 
;(p77/xa  Kttt  dva(TTa<:  e/SaTTTLo-Or]"  {" parachrema  kai  anastas  ebap- 
tisthe"),  "and  immediately  he  stood  up  and  was  bap- 
tized." Tischendorf  omits  the  ''parachrema,"  and  uses 
only  ''kai  anastas  ebaptisthe,"  "and  he  stood  up  and  was 
baptized."  But  this  makes  no  difference;  they  both  say, 
'  *he  stood  up  and  was  baptized." 

In  Paul's  own  account  of  his  baptism  (Acts  xxii.  16) 
he  says  Ananias  said  to  him :  ' '  And  now  why  tarriest  thou  ? 
Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord."  ''Avao-ra?  (SdirTLo-al"  {"Anastas 
baptisai"),  "Stand  up  and  be  baptized."  Anastas  is  from, 
anistemi,  which  Liddell  and  Scott  define,  "to  make  stand 


176      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

up,  raise  up,  set  up."  Other  lexicons  agree  with  Liddell 
and  Scott.  Everything  in  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  baptism  of  Paul  prove  that  he  was  baptized  in 
the  house,  standing  up.  In  Paul's  account  of  his  bap- 
tism, baptism  was  in  some  way  connected  with  the  washing 
away  of  his  sins.  Sins  are  washed  away  only  by  the  blood 
of  Christ;  but  baptism  is  the  outward  emblem  of  the 
washing  away  of  sins.  In  the  chapter  on  "Baptism  a 
Washing"  we  show  that  sins  are  washed  away,  in  or  by 
the  blood  of  Christ,  only  by  sprinkling!  There  is  no 
other  mode  in  the  Scriptures  of  washing  away  sins  but 
that  of  SPRiNKUNG  the  blood  of  Christ.  What  would  be 
more  natural  or  appropriate  than  that  the  emblem  of 
this  washing  away  of  sins  should  conform  in  mode  to  the 
real  washing?  And  this  is  what  was  done  while  Paul  was 
standing  in  the  house  of  Judas. 

The  Baptism  of  Cornelius,  His  Household,  and  His 

Friends. 

The  next  example  of  Baptism  in  the  New  Testament 
we  will  examine  is  that  of  Cornelius,  his  household,  and 
his  friends,  who  were  gathered  in  his  house  to  hear  the 
words  of  Peter.  Acts  x.  46-48:  "Then  answered  Peter, 
Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized, which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we? 
And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord." 

Here  again  we  have  a  baptism  with  all  the  circum- 
stances against  the  idea  of  immersion.  The  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  the  rkai^  baptism,  they  had  just  re- 
ceived, and  it  was  performed  by  pouring  !  Peter,  giving 
an  account  of  this  baptism  (Acts  xi.  15-16),  says:  "And 
as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  FELL  on  Them,  as  on 
us  AT  THE  beginning.     Then  remembered  I  the  word  of 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      177 

the  Lord,  how  that  He  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
There  is  no  question  of  this  being  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  All  admit  it.  Those  who  deny  that  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  remains  in  the  Church  admit  that  Cor- 
nelius, his  household,  and  his  friends  were  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  When  Peter  witnessed  this  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  this  "pouring  out"  and  "faIvLING  on" 
them  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  immediately  brought  to  his 
mind  the  words  of  Jesus.  ( Acts  i.  5 . )  How  did  this  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  this  "pouring  out"  and  this  ' 'palling 
on"  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  suggest  to  Peter's  mind  the  words 
of  the  Lord  concerning  John's  baptism  if  John  baptized 
by  immersion?  Would  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  people  suggest  to  the  mind  of  an  immer- 
sionist  John's  baptism?  Does  not  the  recollection  of  the 
words  of  the  Lord  concerning  John's  baptism  and  the 
promise  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  prove  that  both 
John's  baptism  and  the  fulfillment  of  Christ's  promise  in 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  by  "pouring  out," 
"palling  upon,"  and  not  by  an  immersion  into?  Would 
Peter,  immediately  after  witnessing  this  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  pouring,  command  them  to  be  immersed 
in  token  of  this  baptism  by  pouring  ?  The  thought  is  too 
incongruous  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  Unques- 
tionably Peter,  in  the  baptism  by  water  of  Cornelius,  his 
household,  and  his  friends,  followed  the  example  set  him 
by  the  Lord  in  baptizing  them  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
had  the  water  poured  upon  them  in  token  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  they  had  just  received.  This  is 
the  only  rational  conclusion  to  which  we  can  come. 


178       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

The  Baptism  of  Lydia  and  Her  Household. 

The  next  account  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament 
is  that  of  Lydia  and  her  household,  Acts  xiv.  13-15,  which 
reads  as  follows:  "And  on  the  Sabbath  we  went  out  of 
the  city  by  a  river-side,  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be 
made ;  and  we  sat  down,  and  spake  unto  the  women  which 
resorted  thither.  And  a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a 
seller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped 
God,  heard  us :  whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  at- 
tended unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And 
when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  besought 
us,  saying.  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord, 
come  into  my  house,  and  abide  there.  And  she  con- 
strained us." 

This  place  of  prayer,  or  proseuche,  was  a  large 
building,  like  an  amphitheater,  without  roof,  and  seated, 
where  the  Jews  and  other  devout  persons  went  for  prayer 
and  worship  where  there  was  no  synagogue.  They  were 
usually  built  by  the  sea,  or  by  rivers,  so  that  the  worship- 
ers could  have  the  means  of  purification  before  prayer, 
either  by  sea-water  or  running  water.  These  purifica- 
tions were  not  immersions^  but  washings  of  their  hands 
and  sprinkling  water  upon  their  garments,  as  "Penelope 
sprinkled  her  clean  garments  before  going  to  prayer,  and 
Telemachus  washed  his  hands  at  the  hoary  sea,  before 
praying  to  Athena,"  and  as  Josephus  tells  us  the  trans- 
lators of  the  Septuagint  did — purified  themselves  every 
morning,  by  washing  their  hands  at  the  sea.  This  custom 
of  the  Jews  of  purifying  themselves  before  prayer  or 
worship  doubtless  had  its  orign  in  the  requirement  of  the 
law  concerning  the  purification  of  the  priests  before  en- 
tering the  Tabernacle  to  offer  sacrifices,  to  wash  their 
hands  and  their  feet  (Exodus  xxx.  18-21) ;  or,  as  Josephus 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      179 

says,  "to  wash  their  hands  and  sprinkle  their  feet,"  and 
he  was  himself  a  Jewish  priest,  and  knew  what  their 
customs  were.  The  idea  that  they  immersed  themselves 
before  entering  the  proseuche  for  prayer  is  preposterous. 
This  was  a  place  of  public  gathering  for  both  men  and 
women.  There  were  no  dressing-rooms  in  which  to 
change  their  clothes  after  purification,  and  they  could 
not  immerse  themselves  naked  at  a  promiscuous  gath- 
ering. Immersion  was  not  thought  of.  These  purifica- 
tions were  by  the  ordinary  method  among  both  the  Jews 
and  heathen — by  washing  thkir  hands  and  sprinkung 
water  on  their  garments. 

Lydia  was  awakened  and  converted  under  the 
preaching  of  Paul  in  the  proseuche,  and  was  baptized  on 
the  spot,  before  returning  to  the  city;  and  after  she  was 
baptized,  Luke  says,  "She  besought  us,  saying,  If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  my  house 
and  abide  there.  And  she  constrained  us."  She  took 
them  home  with  her  from  the  proseuche,  and  they  re- 
mained with  her  as  guests  while  they  remained  in  the  city ; 
and  when  they  got  out  of  the  prison,  they  went  to  Lydia's 
house,  and  there  had  their  final  meeting  with  their  con- 
verts before  leaving  the  city. 

All  the  circumstances  indicate  that  she  was  not  im- 
mersed. She  certainly  did  not  take  a  change  of  clothing 
with  her  to  the  proseuche.  She  as  certainly  would  not 
have  returned  to  the  city  and  to  her  house  in  the  city  in 
her  wet  clothes,  as  she  would  have  been  compelled  to  do 
if  she  had  been  immersed.  She  was  plainly  not  immersed, 
but  baptized  by  affusion  at  the  river's  bank,  where  she 
had  purified  herself  before  going  to  prayer. 


i8o       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

The  Baptism  of  the  Jailer  and  His  Family. 

The  last  example  of  baptism  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament  is  that  of  the  Philippian  jailer.  The  full  ac- 
count of  the  conversion  and  baptism  of  the  jailer  and  his 
family  is  given  in  Acts  xvi.  23-33  •  "And  when  they  had 
laid  many  stripes  upon  them,  they  cast  them  into  prison, 
charging  the  jailer  to  keep  them  safely:  who,  having  re- 
ceived such  a  charge,  thrust  them  into  the  inner  prison, 
and  made  their  feet  fast  in  the  stocks.  And  at  midnight 
Paul  and  Silas  prayed,  and  sang  praises  unto  God:  and 
the  prisoners  heard  them.  And  suddenly  there  was  a 
great  earthquake,  so  that  the  foundations  of  the  prison 
were  shaken:  and  immediately  all  the  doors  were  opened, 
and  every  one's  bands  were  loosed.  And  the  keeper  of 
the  prison  awaking  out  of  his  sleep,  and  seeing  the  prison 
doors  open,  he  drew  out  his  sword,  and  would  have  killed 
himself,  supposing  that  the  prisoners  had  been  fled.  But 
Paul  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  saying,  Do  thyself  no  harm : 
for  we  are  all  here.  Then  he  called  for  a  light,  and  sprang 
in,  and  came  trembling,  and  fell  down  before  Paul  and 
Silas,  and  brought  them  out,  and  said.  Sirs,  what  must  I 
do  to  be  saved?  And  they  said,  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house. 
And  they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all 
that  were  in  his  house.  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour 
of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes ;  and  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his,  straightway." 

Here  we  have  a  baptism  in  the  middle  of  the  night, 
in  a  prison,  immediately  after  the  conversion  of  the 
jailer  and  his  family:  "And  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his, 
straightway."  The  word  here  translated  "straightway" 
is  irapaxpifJM  (parachrema)  y  and  is  defined  by  Liddell  and 
Scott:     "On  the  spot,  forthwith,  straightway.*'     Pickering 


Tie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      i8i 

defines  it :  '  'Immediately,  forthwith,  at  the  present  moment; 
as  it  were  in  the  very  act:'  Groves  defines  it:  ''Imme- 
diately, directly,  instantly,  presently:'  Parkhurst  defines 
it:  "Immediately,  instantly:'  Greenfield  defines  it :  "On 
the  spot,  instantly,  immediately:' 

This  word  allows  no  time  to  go  out  of  the  prison, 
down  to  the  river,  in  quest  of  water  sufficient  to  immerse 
in.  Here  was  clearly  a  baptism,  like  that  of  the  Pentecost 
and  that  of  Paul,  where  immersion  was  utterly  out  of  the 
question.  Some  of  the  water  brought  to  wash  the  blood 
from  the  backs  of  Paul  and  Silas  was  doubtless  used  to 
baptize  their  new  converts. 

But  the  imagination  and  ingenuity  of  immersionists 
are  indeed  wonderfully  fruitful  in  devising  expedients  to 
help  out  the  cause  of  immersion  in  the  difficult  places  in 
the  Scriptures,  where  the  plain  language  of  the  Word  of 
God  puts  immersion  out  of  the  question,  as  in  this  case. 
They  ask  the  question,  apparently  in  triumph:     "Does 
not  the  Scripture  say  that  the  jailer  brought  them  out?'* 
Certainly  it  does,  but  does  that  mean  that  he  brought 
them  out  of  the  prison?     Certainly  it  does  not.     Read 
again  the  narrative  given  by  Luke  carefully,  and  you  will 
see  that  when  Paul  and  Silas  were  put  m  prison,  the 
jailer  was  "charged  to  keep  them  safely."     He,  having 
received  that  charge,  "thrust  them  into  the  inner  prison, 
and  made  their  feet  fast  in  the  stocks."     It  was  from  this 
"inner  prison,"  into  which  he  had  "thrust  them,"  that 
he  "brought  them  out"  into  that  part  of  the  prison 
where  he  had  received  them,  and  not  out  of  the  prison. 
It  was  here  that  the  preaching,  washing  their  stripes,  and 
the  baptisms  took  place.     It  was  out  of  this  apartment 
of  the  prison,  into  his  own  house  (or  apartments)  that  he 
brought  them  after  the  baptism,  and  "set  meat  before 
them."    The  house  (or  apartments)  of  the  jailer  was  like 


i82       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

the  houses  or  apartments  of  many  of  our  jailers,  a  part  of 
the  prison.  The  jailer  on  awakening  could  see  the  prison 
doors  were  open,  and  Paul  from  the  "inner  prison"  could 
see  the  jailer  drawing  his  sword  to  kill  himself,  and  the 
jailer  could  hear  him  as  he  cried,  "Do  thyself  no  harm: 
for  we  are  all  here."  This  shows  that  the  jailer's  house 
(or  apartments)  was  so  situated  that,  the  doors  being 
open,  as  they  were  at  that  moment,  a  man  from  the 
dungeon  could  see  into  the  jailer's  house. 

The  jailer  could  not  have  taken  them  out  of  the 
prison  if  he  had  so  desired,  for  the  guards  who  were 
stationed  outside  would  have  arrested  him,  and  his  life 
would  have  paid  the  forfeit.  (Acts  v.  23  and  xii.  19.) 
So  this  attempt  to  get  them  out  of  the  prison  and  down 
to  the  river  fails.  Immersion  could  not  have  been 
accomplished  by  this  means. 

But  the  genius  of  some  of  our  immersionist  friends 
has  invented  a  bath-tub  in  the  prison  large  enough  to  im- 
merse the  jailer  and  his  family  in!  But  they  have  for- 
gotten that  this  was  a  jail,  and  not  a  palace  or  public 
bath-house.  Every  effort  of  our  immersionist  friends  to 
get  the  jailer  and  his  family  immersed  fails  them,  and 
they  must  accept  the  plain  statement  of  the  Word  of  God, 
that  they  were  baptized  in  the  jail,  on  the  spot. 

We  have  gone  through  the  history  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament baptisms,  and  we  have  found  that  the  circum- 
stances and  the  language  used  in  every  case  stand  against 
the  idea  of  immersion,  while  in  some  of  the  cases,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
the  baptism  of  Paul  and  the  jailer,  both  the  language 
used  and  the  circumstances  utterly  forbid  the  idea  of 
immersion. 

We  hold  to  the  unity  of  the  mode  or  action  of  baptism, 
both  of  the  baptism  of^the  Holy^Ghost  and  of  water.     We 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      183 

do  not  believe  that  there  were  different  modes  practiced  by 
the  apostles.  When  we  prove  that  in  one  or  more  cases  bap- 
tism was  unquestionably  performed  by  affusion,  we  prove 
that  this  was  the  practice  in  every  case.  We  do  not  believe 
that  Christ  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  by  one  mode  and 
commanded  us  to  baptize  with  water  by  another  and 
totally  different  mode.  We  know  that  Christ  always  bap- 
tizes WITH  the  Holy  Ghost  by  pouring  out,  falwng  on, 
or  SHEDDING  FORTH ;  never  by  plunging  into  or  immer- 
sion. No  fact  in  the  Bible  is  more  clearly  proven  by  the 
express  declarations  of  the  Word  of  God  than  is  this. 
No  fact  is  more  positively  stated  by  the  Word  of  God  than 
that  the  washing  away  of  sins  by  the  blood  of  Christ  is 
always  done  by  sprinkling,  and  not  by  plunging  or  im- 
mersion. Baptism  is  the  outward  symbol  or  emblem  of 
the  purification  of  the  soul  from  sin  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  the  regeneration  of  the  nature  by  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

This  twofold  cleansing  of  the  soul  in  the  process  of 
salvation,  which  is  symbolized  in  baptism,  is  beautifully 
expressed  by  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  Titus,  iii.  5-6:  "Not 
by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  ac- 
cording to  His  mercy  He  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  re- 
generation, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  which  He 
shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior; 
that  being  justified  by  His  grace,  we  should  be  made  heirs 
according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life." 

The  "washing  of  regeneration"  is  the  washing  away 
of  past  sins;  the  "renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  is  the  re- 
generation of  the  nature,  the  impartation  of  the  new  life. 
The  result  of  this  "washing"  and  "renewing"  is  salva- 
tion, purification  from  inward  and  outward  sin,  and  bap- 
tism symbolizes  this  purification,  this  salvation. 


184      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

Peter  most  beautifully  and  forcefully  sets  forth  the 
relation  of  baptism  to  spiritual  cleansing  or  purification 
in  First  Peter  iii.  21:  "The  like  figure  whereunto  even 
baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  (not  the  putting  away  of 
the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God),  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 

This  is  an  express  declaration  that  baptism  does  not 
save  us  by  putting  away  sin.  He  expressly  declares  that 
sin  is  put  away  through  atonement.  (First  Peter  ii.  24.) 
But  it  is  "the  answer  of  a  good  conscience."  It  does  not 
make  the  conscience  good.  That  is  done  through  the 
cleansing  blood  and  renewing  Spirit.  Baptism  is  the  out- 
ward answer  to  this  inward  purification.  This  is  the  re- 
lation baptism  sustains  to  spiritual  cleansing  and  purifi- 
cation throughout  both  Testaments ;  and  reason  demands 
that  there  should  be  a  correspondence  in  the  mode  as  well 
as  in  the  design  of  baptism. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Buried  in  Baptism. 

When  our  immersionist  friends  are  driven  from  every 
other  position,  they  fall  back  on  Romans  vi.  i-6  and  Co- 
lossians  ii.  11-12  as  their  impregnable  fortress,  and  say, 
"Does  not  Paul  call  baptism  a  burial,  and  how  can 
we  have  a  burial  without  immersion?"  and  they  think 
their  cause  is  won.  After  long  and  patient  investigation, 
I  have  become  fully  convinced  that  there  is  no  allusion  to 
water  baptism  in  these  passages,  and  consequently  no 
reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion.  Com- 
mentators usually  assume  that  in  these  passages  there  is 
an  allusion  to  the  ancient  practice  of  baptism  by  immer- 
sion. But  ancient  as  that  practice  may  have  been,  after 
the  most  painstaking  examination  of  the  subject  for  more 
than  half  a  century,  I  can  find  no  evidence  that  it  was  as 
ancient  as  the  days  of  the  apostles.  There  is  certanily  no 
evidence  of  this  practice  in  the  Scriptures,  as  we  have  seen 
and  shall  see  as  we  proceed;  there  is  no  evidence  of  it  in 
the  earliest  history  of  the  Church. 

The  trouble  with  commentators  generally  has  been, 
they  have  not  given  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
prominent  place  that  it  holds  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  In- 
deed, immersionists  generally  contend  that  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  ceased  altogether  after  the  days  of  the 
apostles.  In  fact,  they  hold  that  there  have  been  only 
two  examples  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
whole  history  of  the  Church  of  Christ — that  of  Pente- 
cost and  of  the  household  of  Cornelius.     They  seem  to 

185 
—13— 


1 86       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

forget  that  John's  testimony  to  Jesus  was,  that  His  espe- 
cial ofl&ce  was  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  his  was 
to  baptize  with  water. 

In  John  i.  33-34  we  read:  "And  I  knew  him  not: 
but  He  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said 
unto  me,  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending 
and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  He  which  baptizeth 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  I  saw,  and  bare  record  that 
this  is  the  Son  of  God."  Here  it  is  plainly  affirmed  that 
the  mission  of  Christ  was  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  in  Matthew  iii.  11,  Mark  i.  8,  and  Luke  iii.  16  John 
declares:  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  .  .  . 
He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  same 
YOU  that  I  have  baptized  with  water,  Hk  shall  baptize 
with  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  plainly  a  promise  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  all  believers  in  all  time,  and 
not  a  few  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  in  the  house  of 
Cornelius.  If  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  con- 
fined to  a  few  select  ones,  on  these  two  occasions,  then 
this  promise  has  never  been  fulfilled. 

Again,  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  declared  that 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  received  on  that  day  was 
the  beginning  of  the  fulfillment  of  Joel's  prophecy :  "And 
it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour 
out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."  Here  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  received  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  is 
promised  to  all  believers  in  all  ages,  and  not  the  privilege 
of  a  select  few. 

In  Hebrews  vi.  1-2  we  have  "the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tisms" among  the  principles  of  J" the  doctrine  of  Christ" : 
"Therefore,  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  let  us  go  on  unto  perfection ;  not  laying  again  the 
foundation  of  repentance  from  dead  works,  and  of  faith 
toward  God,  of  the  doctrine  of  baptisms,  and  of  laying  on 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      187 

of  hands,  and  of  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal 
judgment."  These  six  principles  of  the  "doctrine  of 
Christ"  are  permanent  and  abiding  in  the  Church. 
Baptisms,  like  repentance,  faith,  laying  on  of  hands, 
resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  eternal  judgment,  are 
permanent  and  abiding  principles. 

In  First  Corinthians  xii.  13  Paul  affirms  that  all  be- 
lievers are  put  into  Christ  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  He  says:  "For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
whether  we  be  bond  or  free;  and  have  been  all  made  to 
drink  into  one  Spirit."  If  we  are  in  Christ,  we  have  been 
put  into  Him  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  if 
we  have  not  been  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  are 
not  in  Him,  and  have  neither  part  nor  lot  with  Him. 

These  two  baptisms  are  among  the  permanent  and 
abiding  principles  of  "the  doctrine  of  Christ" — the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  purifies  the  heart  and  puts 
us  into  Christ,  and  the  baptism  of  water,  which  is  the 
sign  of  this  inward  purity ;  it  necessarily  follows  that  where 
a  saving  efficacy  or  a  putting  into  Christ  is  ascribed  to 
baptism,  it  must  be  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  it 
alone  saves  and  puts  into  Christ. 

With  these  facts  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  before  us, 
we  are  prepared  to  examine  Romans  vi.  1-6  and  Colos- 
sians  ii.  11-12,  and  get  a  true  and  Scriptural  interpreta- 
tion of  them. 

Romans  vi.  1-6  reads:  ''What  shall  we  say  then? 
Shall  we  continue  in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound?  God 
forbid.  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any 
longer  therein?  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  His  death? 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  Him  by  baptism  into  death : 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the 


1 88       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  new- 
ness of  life.  For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the 
likeness  of  His  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his 
resurrection:  knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified 
with  Him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that 
henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin." 

We  ask  the  reader  to  note  particularly  the  language 
here  used.     Paul  is  talking  about  a  death  to  sin,  and  the 

obligation  of  those  who  are  dead  to  sin  to  lead  a  new  life. 
In  enforcing  this  great  gospel  truth,  he  says :     ' '  Know  ye 

not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jejsus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  His  death?"  The  baptism 
of  which  He  speaks  was  a  baptism  "into  Jesus  Christ," 
not  a  baptism  into  water.  There  is  no  water  in  this 
baptism  at  all.  It  is  also  a  "baptism  into  His  death." 
What  baptism  is  it  that  puts  us  into  Christ  and  into  the 
benefits  of  His  death?  for  that  is  what  is  meant  by  being 
"baptized  into  His  death."  Paul  answers  this  question 
— the  same  Paul  who  wrote  Romans  vi.  3 :  "  For  by  one 
Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body" — the  one 
BODY  OF  Christ.  This  settles  the  question  as  to  the 
baptism  here  spoken  of.  It  is  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  not  the  baptism  of  water.  The  next  verse 
affirms  that  the  baptism  and  the  burial  are  not  the  same, 
but  that  the  baptism  is  the  agent  by  or  through  which 
the  burial  is  effected:  "Therefore  we  are  buried  with 
Him  [did\  through  baptism  into  death."  The  burial  is 
into  death,  not  into  water.  Here  the  supposed  al- 
lusion to  a  burial  in  immersion  breaks  down  altogether. 

In  this  burial  there  is  no  resurrection  out  of  that  into 
which  these  Roman  Christians  had  been  buried — they 
were  still  buried  at  the  time  this  epistle  was  written, 
and  a  resurrection  out  of  that  into  which  they  had  been 
buried  would  have  been  an  apostacy  from  Christ.     Here 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      189 

the  supposed  allusion  to  baptism  by  immersion  fails  again, 
for  in  immersion  there  must  be  a  resurrection  out  of 
THAT  INTO  WHICH  the  person  had  been  buried.  These 
Roman  Christians  were  walking  in  newness  of  life  while 
buried  into  the  death  of  Christ  by  or  through  baptism, 
so  that  the  burial  and  the  resurrection  to  the  new  life 
existed  at  the  same  time. 

Next  we  have  the  figure  of  planting,  or  grafting,  to 
represent  our  death  to  sin  and  newness  of  Hfe.     Verse  5 : 
"For  if  we  have  been  planted  [or  grafted]  together  in  the 
likeness  of  His  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of 
His  resurrection."     What,  we  ask,  was  the  likeness  of 
Christ's  death  to  our  being  "planted"  or  grafted  into  Him 
in  a  spiritual  sense?     There  can  be  no  physical  likeness 
to  immersion  alluded  to  here,  yet  all  this  is  accompHshed 
by  or   through  baptism.     In   the   next  verse   he   says: 
"Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  Him, 
that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth 
we  should  not  serve  sin."     We  ask  again,  Could  there  be 
any  physical  likeness  between  Christ's  crucifixion  on  the 
cross  and  our  spiritual  crucifixion  with  Him,  and  im- 
mersion  in  water?    Yet  all  these   things  were   accom- 
pUshed  by  the  baptism  here  spoken  of.     The  whole  idea 
of  an  allusion  to  the  mode  of  physical  baptism  here  drops 
out,  and  the  effects  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by 
which  all  these  results  are  accompHshed,  becomes  ap- 
parent, and  proves  that  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion 
was  not  alluded  to  in  this  passage,  nor  was  it  in  the  mind 
of  the  apostle  when  he  wrote  it ;  but  that  he  was  speaking 
of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  which  all  these 
results  are  accomplished. 

Turn  now  to  the  parallel  passage,  Colossians  ii.  11-12 : 
'In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision 
made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins 


190       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ:  buried  with 
Him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  Him 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath 
raised  Him  from  the  dead." 

Here  it  is  plain  that  the  circumcision  of  verse  11 
and  the  baptism  of  verse  12  are  one  and  the  same.  The 
passage  clearly  shows  this.  The  circumcision,  all  admit, 
was  a  spiritual,  and  not  a  physical  one.  It  was  "the 
circumcision  of  Christ,  made  without  hands,''  and  was  the 
putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh.  The  baptism 
of  verse  12  then  must  be  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  not  of  water,  and  consequently  can  have  no  reference 
to  the  mode  of  physical  baptism  by  immersion.  The 
iv  TO)  (SaTrTLa-fxaTL  (en  to  haptismati)  must  mean  the  same 
as  Sta  TO)  /SaTTTLcrfiaTo^  (dia  to  haptismatos)  in  Romans  vi.  4. 
That  is,  ev  {en)  is  dative  of  instrument,  and  should  be 
translated  "by,"  as  it  is  once  in  verse  11,  and  "with" 
once.  The  burial  is  the  same  in  both  passages,  for  the 
same  man  is  writing  about  the  same  thing.  * '  Buried  by 
baptism"  must  be  the  proper  rendering  of  this  passage. 
The  authorized  version  makes  Paul  contradict  himself. 
The  burial  in  Romans  vi.  4  is  not  the  baptism,  nor  is  it 
"in  baptism,"  but  "through  baptism."  In  Colossians 
ii.  12,  in  the  commonly  received  version,  the  burial  is  "in 
baptism."  But  that  the  burial  in  Colossians  is  a  spiritual 
one,  like  the  burial  in  Romans,  "into  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  death,"  is  demonstrated  by  the  antithesis — the 
resurrection.  "Buried  with  Him  by  baptism,  wherein 
ye  are  also  risen  with  Him  through  the  faith  of  the 
OPERATION  OF  God."  The  resurrection  is  unquestionably 
a  spiritual  one,  and  it  follows  that  the  burial  must  also  be 
a  spiritual  one,  and  the  baptism  which  accomplished  both 
must  be  a  spiritual  baptism — the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  not  the  baptism  of  water. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      191 

While  this,  I  admit,  is  not  the  usual  interpretation 
of  these  passages,  I  do  not  stand  alone.  Prof.  MosKS 
Stuart  takes  the  same  view  of  these  passages.  I  quote 
from  Dr.  J.  R.  Graves'  edition.     He  says : 

"Most  commentators  have  maintained  that  (rwera- 
<f}r]fi.ev  [sunetaphemen]  here  has  a  necessary  reference 
to  the  mode  of  literal  baptism,  which  they  say  was  by 
immersion;  and  this,  they  think,  affords  [ground  for  the 
employment  of  the  image  used  by  the  apostle,  because 
immersion  (under  water)  may  be  compared  to  a  burial 
(under  the  earth).  It  is  difficult,  perhaps,  to  procure  a 
patient  rehearing  for  this  subject,  so  long  regarded  by 
some  as  being  out  of  fair  dispute.  Nevertheless,  as  my 
own  conviction  is  not,  after  protracted  and  repeated  ex- 
aminations, accordant  here  with  that  of  commentators 
in  general,  I  feel  constrained  briefly  to  state  my  reasons. 

*  *  (a)  The  first  is,  that  in  the  verse  before  us  there  is 
a  plain  antithesis — one  so  plain  that  it  is  impossible  to 
overlook  it.  If,  now,  (rvvcTd<f>r]fiev  [sunetaphemen]  is  to  be 
interpreted  in  a  physical  way — i.  e.,  as  meaning  baptism 
in  a  physical  sense,  where  is  the  corresponding  physical 
idea  in  the  opposite  part  of  the  antithesis  or  comparison? 
Plainly  there  is  no  such  physical  idea  or  reference  in  the 
other  part  of  the  antithesis.  The  resurrection  there 
spoken  of  is  entirely  a  moral,  spiritual  one;  for  it  is  one 
which  Christians  have  already  experienced  during  the 
present  life,  as  maybe  fully  seen  by  comparing  vs.  5,  11, 
below.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  after  tJ/^cZ?  [emeis]  in 
v.  4,  iyep6evT€^  [egerthentes]  is  implied;  since  the  nature 
of  the  comparison,  the  preceding  d)s  rjyepOrj  Xpto-ros  [hoos 
egerthe  Christos]  and  v.  5,  make  this  entirely  plain. 

"If  we  turn  now  to  the  passage  in  Colossians  2:  12 
(which  is  altogether  parallel  with  the  verse  under  exam- 
ination,  and  which  has  very  often  been  agitated  by 


192      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

polemic  writers  on  the  subject  of  baptism) ,  we  shall  there 
find  more  conclusive  reason  still  to  argue  as  above  re- 
specting the  nature  of  the  antithesis  presented.  *We 
have  been  buried  with  [Christ]  by  baptism.'  What  now 
is  the  opposite  of  this?  What  is  the  kind  of  resurrection 
from  this  grave  in  which  Christians  have  been  buried? 
The  apostle  tells  us:  'We  have  risen  with  Him  [Christ] 
by  faith  wrought  by  the  power  of  God'  [rrj^  cvepyetas  tov  ©eov 
{tes  energeias  ton  Theou)],  who  raised  Him  [Christ]  from 
the  dead.'  Here  there  is  a  resurrection  by  faith;  i.  e.,  a 
spiritual,  moral  one.  Why,  then,  should  we  look  for  a 
physical  meaning  in  the  antithesis?  If  one  part  of  the 
antithesis  is  to  be  construed  in  a  manner  entirely  moral 
or  spiritual,  why  should  we  not  construe  the  other  in  like 
manner?  To  understand  (TvvTd<f>r]fji€v  [suntaphemen]  then, 
of  a  literal  burial  under  water,  is  to  understand  it  in  a 
manner  which  the  laws  of  interpretation  appear  to  forbid. 

•  •  •  • 

' '  For  these  reasons  I  feel  inclined  to  doubt  the  usual 
exegeses  of  the  passage  before  us,  and  to  believe  that  the 
apostle  had  in  view  only  a  burying  which  is  moral  and 
spiritual,  for  the  same  reasons  that  he  had  a  moral  and 
spiritual  (not  a  physical)  resurrection  in  view,  in  the 
corresponding  part  of  the  antithesis. 

"Indeed,  what  else  but  a  moral  burying  can  be  meant 
when  the  apostle  goes  on  to  say,  'We  are  buried  with 
Him  [not  by  baptism  only,  but]  by  baptism  into  His 
DEATH '  ?  Of  course  it  will  not  be  contended  that  a  literal 
physical  burying  is  here  meant,  but  only  a  moral  one. 
And  although  the  words  into  His  death  are  not  inserted 
in  Colossians  2:12,  yet  as  the  following  verse  there  shows, 
they  are  plainly  implied 

"When  the  apostle  says,  then,  in  Colossians  2:  12, 
* a-vvTd<fi€VTe'i  avrw  iv  tw  fiaTTTLajxaTL  [' Suntaphentes  auto  en  to 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       193 

baptismati'],  I  understand  him  as  employing  eV  t<5  /3a7r- 

TtV/wiTt  [en  to  baptismati]  in  the  dative,  in  order  to  signify 

the  occasion,  means,  etc.,  in  Hke  manner  as  the  dative  is 

elsewhere  used  in  a  similar  way.     Thus,  when  it  is  said, 

'He  shall  baptize  you  h  nvevfrnTL  dycto  kol  irvpC  ['en  pneumati 

agio  kai puri'],  or  *€v  7rvcv>aTt*  ['en  pneumati]  simply — e,  g., 

Matthew  3:  11;  Mark  1:8;  Luke  3:16;  John  1:33;   Acts 

II :  16,  or  when  it  is  said,  We  have  all  been  baptized  into 

one  body,  by  one  Spirit,  'h  ivl  irvcv/xart'  ['en  eni  pneumati'] 

the  meaning  cannot  be  that  we  have  been   plunged  or 

immersed  into  one  Spirit,  or  into   one  fire,  but  that  by 

means  of  these  we  have  been  spiritually  baptized,  or  that 

the  Spirit  has  been  copiously  poured  out  upon  Christians." 

(Stuart  on  "Baptism,"  pp.  97,  98,  100,  loi,  102,  103, 

104,  106.) 

But  when  we  come  to  examine  the  case  fairly,  what 
resemblance  can  we  see  between  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ  and  the  immersion  of  a  human  body 
under  water?     Plainly  there  can  be  no  physical  likeness 
between  His  death  on  the  cross  and  immersion  in  water. 
Paul  says  (Romans  vi.  5) :     "For  if  we  have  been  planted 
together  in  the  likeness  of  His  death,  we  shall  be  also  in 
the  likeness  of  His  resurrection."     "Planted  together"— 
with  Him.     What  physical  likeness  is  there  between  the 
death  of  Christ  on  the  cross  and  immersion?    Physical 
likeness  is  here  utterly  out  of  the  question,  and  will  not  be 
contended  for,  for  a  moment.     And  yet  this  planting  to- 
gether in  the  likeness  of  His  death  is  ascribed  to  being 
"buried  with  Him  by  baptism  into  death."     (Verse  4.) 
But  we  ask  again.  What  physical  likeness  is  there  between 
the  burial  of  Christ  in  Joseph's  new  tomb,  hewn  out  of  a 
rock,  with  niches  cut  on  the  sides  to  lay  the  bodies  in 
(Matthew  xxvii.  60),  and  the  immersion  of  a  human  body 
under  water?     Remember  the  body  of  Christ  was  not  cov- 


194       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

ered  up,  but  laid  in  the  tomb,  probably  in  one  of  the 
places  cut  in  the  sides  of  it,  as  receptacles  for  the  bodies 
of  the  dead.  The  tomb  was  closed  by  a  large  stone  cut 
to  fit  the  door  as  a  shutter.  What  physical  likeness  is 
there  between  such  a  burial  and  an  immersion  under 
water?  It  takes  a  tremendous  amount  of  ingenuity  and 
a  great  stretch  of  imagination  to  see  any  likeness  what- 
ever between  the  two ! 

Again,  we  ask,  What  physical  likeness  is  there  be- 
tween the  resurrection  of  Christ  getting  up  and  walking 
out  of  the  tomb  and  a  human  body  being  raised  up  out  of 
the  water  by  a  human  administrator?  Plainly  there  is  no 
physical  likeness  between  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ  and  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  a  human  body 
by  immersion  in  water. 

This  is  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Romans.  What 
likeness  was  there  betw^een  the  burial  of  the  Romans  and 
immersion  in  water?  The  Romans  usually  burned  the 
bodies  of  their  dead,  and  gathered  up  their  ashes  and  put 
them  in  an  urn,  and  placed  the  urn  in  a  tomb  or  a  room 
prepared  for  that  purpose.  Could  they  have  understood 
that  there  was  any  physical  likeness  between  their  mode 
of  burial  and  immersion  in  water?  Can  any  likeness  be 
seen  between  our  mode  of  burial  and  immersion?  If  there 
is  any  likeness  at  all  between  baptism  and  such  a  mode  of 
burial,  it  would  be  to  baptism  by  pouring,  for  the  earth  is 
poured  upon  the  body,  and  not  the  body  plunged  into  the 
earth.  Plainly  there  can  be  no  physical  likeness  be- 
tween any  of  these  modes  of  burial  and  iynmersion  in  water. 
The  likeness  is  wholly  imaginary — an  after-thought,  to 
find  some  sort  of  justification  for  immersion  in  the  Word 
of  God. 

Baptism  nowhere  represents  death,  but  life — not  the 
corruption  of  the  grave,  but  the  purification  of  the  heart 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      195 

by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  idea  that  baptism  was  designed 
to  represent  the  deaths  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ 
was  unknown  in  the  primitive  Church,  and  was  not 
thought  of  until  it  was  brought  forward  to  find  some  sort 
of  support  for  the  practice  of  immersion  for  baptism;  and 
as  the  first  immersion  practiced  was  trine  immersion,  the 
three  dips  were  supposed  to  represent  the  three  days  that 
Jesus  lay  in  the  tomb !  But  what  did  the  three  resurrec- 
tions represent?  Christ  arose  but  once;  but  in  trine  im- 
mersion there  were  three  resurrections.  We  ask,  What  did 
they  represent?  Christ  was  buried  but  once;  but  in  trine 
immersion  there  were  three  burials.  What  did  these 
burials  represent?  The  ingenuity  of  these  ancient  im- 
mersionists  could  invent  a  theory  to  justify  their  three 
dips  to  represent  the  three  days  in  which  the  body  of 
Jesus  lay  in  the  tomb,  but  it  was  unable  to  invent  any 
theory  or  explanation  of  three  resurrections  of  their 
baptism ! 

These  old  immersionists  baptized  their  candidates 
naked ;  they  reasoned  thus :  ' '  Baptism  is  a  washing,  and 
it  ought  to  be  a  washing  of  the  body,  and  not  of  the 
clothes";  and  hence  they  stripped  their  candidates  as 
naked  as  they  were  born  to  baptize  them.  Let  no  man 
say  this  is  a  slander  on  these  old  primitive  immersionists, 
for  Dr.  Richard  Robinson,  the  great  Baptist  historian, 
in  his  "History  of  Baptism,"  says:  '%et  it  be  observed 
that  these  primitive  Christians  baptized  naked.  Nothing 
is  easier  than  to  give  proof  of  this  by  quotations  from  the 
authentic  writings  of  the  men  who  l  dministered  baptism, 
and  who  certainly  knew  in  what  way  they  themselves 
performed  it.  ThkrE  is  no  ancient  historicaIv  fact 
BETTER  AUTHENTICATED  THAN  THIS."  (Robiusou's  "His- 
tory of  Baptism,"  p.  113.) 


196       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

No  sensible  man  can  for  a  moment  belive  that  any 
such  indecent  and  immoral  practice  as  this  prevailed  in 
the  apostolic  Church ;  and  as  we  find  it  always  connected 
with  immersion,  it  is  strong  presumptive  proof  that  im- 
mersion itself  originated  in  the  same  superstition  that  did 
these  accompaniments,  all  of  which  sought  to  make  the 
simple  rite  of  baptism  more  impressive. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Baptism  a  Washing. 

But  ThK   question   is   asked:     "Is  not  baptism  a 
washing,  and  does  not  that  necessarily  imply  an  immer- 
sion? for  how  can  there  be  a  washing  without  an  immer- 
sion?    A  few  drops  of  water  sprinkled  upon  the  head  is 
not  a  washing."     We  answer:    Neither  is  an  immersion  a 
washing,  if  you  take  washing  in  a  literal  sense.     If  the 
washing  of  baptism  must  be  taken  in  a  literal  sense,  then 
much  more  is  necessary  than  a  simple  dip  in  the  water. 
But  if  the  washing  of  baptism  is  understood  as  a  religious 
washing,  which  it  is,  and  must  be  so  understood,  then  it 
may  be  a  sprinkling;    for  nearly  all  the  religious  washings 
or  baptisms  of  the  Jews  were  simple  sprinklings,  and  not 
one   personal   immersion   was   among   them.     We  have 
seen  that  Paul,  in  Hebrews  ix.  lo,  declares  the  law  was 
made  up  principally  of  "divers  baptisms";  and  in  the 
same  connection  he  speaks  of  these  baptisms  as  sprink- 
lings.    It  is  only  when  we  connect  the  idea  of  a  literal 
physical  washing  of  the  dirt  from  the  body,  or  washing 
clothes,  that  we  get  the  idea  of  immersion  connected  with 
the  washing  of  baptism. 

The  recklessness  of  some  of  the  over-zealous  advo- 
cates of  immersion  may  be  seen  in  a  statement  made  by 
Mr.  Braden  in  his  debate  with  me,  page  45,  where  he  says: 
"The  only  way  water  was  ever  applied  in  the  law  for 
cleansing  was  by  a  bathing  in  water,  or  immersion.  The 
water  of  separation  or  purification  was  not  the  element 
water  alone,     God  never  commanded  the  element  water 

197 


198       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

alone  to  be  sprinkled  on  any  person  for  any  purpose, 
ceremonial  or  religious.  The  washing  spoken  of  in  all 
these  cases — washing  as  haptidzo  is  rendered  in  our  ver- 
sion— is  immersion.  They  were  immersions,  and  hap- 
tidzo is  used  because  it  means  immerse,  and  it  ought  to 
be  translated  'immerse'  in  all  these  cases." 

There  are  three  things  in  this  quotation  to  which  we 
wish  to  call  attention : 

I.  Mr.  Braden's  statement,  "The  only  way  water 
was  ever  applied  in  the  law  for  cleansing  was  by  a  bath- 
ing or  immersion."  This  is  utterly  untrue.  Aaron  and 
his  sons  were  cleansed  or  purified  by  simple  water,  by 
being  washed  at  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle,  "in  the 
presence  of  all  the  congregation."  (Leviticus  viii.  3-6.) 
Here  was  simple  unmixed  water,  and  the  washing  could 
not  have  been  done  "by  a  bathing  of  the  whole  body  or 
immersion."  In  Exodus  xxx.  17-21  God  made  a  per- 
petual statute,  that  the  priests  should  always  cleanse 
themselves  by  washing  their  hands  and  feet  out  of  the 
little  laver,  or,  as  Josephus  (who  was  himself  a  priest) 
says,  "wash  their  hands,  and  sprinkle  their  feet,"  before 
entering  into  the  Tabernacle,  "lest  they  die."  The  word 
here  translated  "wash"  in  the  Septuagint  is  nipsoontai. 

In  Leviticus  xv.  11  we  read:  "And  whosoever  he 
toucheth  that  hath  the  issue,  and  hath  not  rinsed  his 
hands  in  water,  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  him- 
self in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  even."  Here  a  man  is 
cleansed  by  "rinsing  his  hands  in  water."  The  word 
translated  "rinsed"  is  neniptai;  in  the  Septuagint  it  is 
vevLTTTaL  v8aTL  (neniptai  hudati),  "rinsed  with  water." 
The  water  was  poured  upon  the  hands,  and  not  the  hands 
dipped  in  the  water.  Here  is  a  cleansing  of  the  person 
by  pouring  simple  water  on  the  hands.  What  becomes 
of  Mr.  Braden's  statement  in  the  face  of  these  precepts 


TJie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      199 

of  the  law  in  regard  to  cleansing  by  pouring  or  sprinkling 
simple  water  on  the  unclean  person? 

In  Leviticus  xv.  5,  6,  7,  8,  10,  11,  12,  16,  17,  18,  21,  23, 
and  27  we  have  various  cleansings  described,  all  of  them 
with  pure,  simple  water.     While  in  our  version  these  ex- 
amples read,  '  'and  shall  bathe  himself  in  water,"  in  the 
Septuagint   in    every   case   it  is   koI   XovVerat   vSari   (kai 
lousetai  hudatt),  the  simple  dative,  and  can  only  be  trans- 
lated properly,  "and  shall  wash  with  water."     Some- 
times our  translators  render  it,   "wash  in  water,"  and 
sometimes,  "bathe   in  water";    but   the   preposition   is 
never  used;    it  is  simple  dative:    lousetai  hudati,  " shall 
wash  with  water."     The  truth  is,  not  one  of  these  wash- 
ings  or   purifications   was    performed   by    "bathing   in 
water."     Our  translators  had  no  authority,  in  either  the 
Septuagint  or  the  Hebrew,  or  the  customs  of  the  Jews, 
to  translate  any  of  these  cases,  "shall  bathe  in  water." 
In  verse   16  they  translate  ''kai  lousetai  hudati  pan  to 
soma,''  "then  he  shall  wash  all  his  flesh  in  water."     And 
in  verse  11  they  translate  "kai  lousetai  to  soma  hudati," 
"and  bathe  himself  in  water."     Why  translate  lousetai 
"wash"  in  one  verse  and  "baThE"  in  the  other?     In 
fact,  in  all  the  other  cases  in  this  chapter  where  it  is,  in 
our  version,  "bathe  himself  in  water,"  himself  is  in  ital- 
ics, showing  that  it  is  always  supplied,  and  not  in  the 
original.     It  is  also  not  in  the  Greek.     Kai  lousetai  hudati 
is  simply,  "and  shall  wash  with  water." 

2.  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Jews  never 
"bathed  in  water,"  unless  in  the  sea  or  a  running  stream. 
They  never  bathed  in  a  bath-tub  as  we  do.  If  a  bath- 
tub or  any  other  vessel  was  used,  it  was  used  simply  as  a 
receptacle  to  catch  the  water  that  was  poured  over  the 
body  while  standing  or  sitting  in  it.  Living  (that  is, 
running)  water  was  not  to  be  had  in  Palestine  in  a  large 


200       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

part  of  the  country  and  for  a  large  portion  of  the  year. 
Their  water  supply  was  mainly  obtained  from  wells  and 
cisterns  and  artificial  pools.  They  could  not  and  would 
not  immerse  themselves  in  their  wells,  cisterns,  and  pools, 
which  held  the  water  for  drinking  and  cooking  purposes, 
for  this  would  have  made  it  ceremonially  and  literally  un- 
clean and  unfit  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  life.  The 
following  quotation  from  Rev.  E.  B.  Fairfield,  D.D., 
will  throw  much  light  on  this  subject: 

"The  word  [louo]  often  and  more  strictly  means  a 
bath?  And  this  suggests  the  very  interesting  and  per- 
tinent question  as  to  what  was  the  ancient  method  of 
bathing.  For,  as  you  know  without  any  doubt.  Baptist 
writers  generally  insist  that  bathing  implies  immersion. 
.  .  .  It  is  a  groundless  assumption.  I  think  whoever 
studies  the  subject  thoroughly  will  find  it  true  that  in  all 
Eastern  bathing,  in  both  ancient  and  modern  times,  it 
was  regarded  as  a  matter  of  chief  importance  that  the 
water  should  be  in  motion.  This  was  especially  so  among 
the  Jews.  The  water  applied  to  the  ashes  was  to  be  run- 
ning water,  as  seen  from  the  quotation  above.  (Numbers 
19:  17.)  In  the  Hebrew  it  is  literally  'living  water.' 
(See  marginal  reading  in  Numbers  19:  17;  Leviticus  14: 

50,  51,  52.) 

"This  was  the  idea  with  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  as 
illustrated  by  their  baths,  as  described  by  Dr.  William 
Smith  in  his  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities. 
*It  would  appear,'  as  he  says,  'from  the  description  of  the 
bath  administered  to  Ulysseus  in  the  palace  of  Circe,  that 
the  vessel  did  not  contain  water  itself,  but  was  only  used 
for  the  bather  to  sit  in  while  the  water  was  poured  over 
HIM.  The  water  was  heated  in  a  large  caldron,  under 
which  the  fire  was  placed,  and  when  sufficiently  warmed. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      201 

was  taken  out  in  other  vessels,  and  poured  over  the  head 
and  shoulders  of  the  person  who  sat  in  the  bath-tub.' 

"Dr.  Smith  further  says:  'On  ancient  vases,  on 
which  persons  are  represented  bathing,  we  never  find 
anything  corresponding  to  a  modern  bath  in  which  per- 
sons can  stand  or  sit ;  but  there  is  always  a  round  or  oval 
basin  resting  on  a  stand,  by  the  side  of  which  those  who 
are  bathing  are  represented  standing  undressed  and 
washing  themselves.* 

"Confirmatory  of  this  is  a  description  given  by 
Plutarch  of  bathing  among  the  Greeks,  in  which  he  says : 
'Some  give  orders  to  throw  the  water  on  cold;  others 
warm.' 

"Wilkinson,  in  'The  Manners  of  the  Ancient  Egyp- 
tians,' speaks  of  a  painting  in  an  old  tomb  at  Thebes, 
which  represents  a  lady  at  the  bath,  in  which  one  of  her 
attendants  is  pouring  water  from  a  vase  over  her  head. 

"Travelers  in  the  East  find  the  same  custom  even 
when  persons  resort  to  a  river  for  bathing.  It  is  not  for 
immersion,  but  for  running  water,  which  is  thrown, 
poured,  or  sprinkled  upon  the  bather.  Water  in  motion 
seems  everywhere  to  be  sought  for."  (Fairfield's  "Let- 
ters on  Baptism,"  pp.  92,  93,  94,  95.) 

What  becomes  of  Mr.  Braden's  statement  in  the  face 
of  these  facts?  Every  one  of  these  purifications  was 
done  WITH  water — not  one  single  immersion  among  them 
— not  a  single  personal  immersion  required  or  enjoined  by 
the  law  of  Moses. 

We  want  to  call  attention  to  another  fact  in  the  time 
of  our  Lord.  In  John  ii.  6  we  read:  "And  there  were  set 
there  six  water-pots  of  stone,  after  the  manner  of  the 
purifying  of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or  three  firkins 
apiece."  It  is  apparent  from  this,  that  the  master  of  a 
feast  among  the  Jews  made  provision  for  the  guests  to 
—14— 


202       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

have  ample  means  for  purifying  themselves,  not  only  for 
washing  their  hands  before  eating,  but  also  during  and 
after  their  meals,  and  for  those  who  came  from  the 
markets,  or  from  a  crowd,  when  it  was  necessary  that 
they  should  purify  or  baptize  themselves,  not  only  by 
washing  their  hands,  but  by  sprinkling  their  clothes. 
There  was  ample  provision  for  the  baptism  or  purifica- 
tion of  all  the  guests,  but  there  was  no  provision  for 
their  immersion. 

We  know  that  they  washed  their  hands  not  by  dip- 
ping THEM.  A  clean  person  dipped  the  water  from  the 
water-pots  with  a  small  vessel,  and  poured  it  upon  the 
hands  or  sprinkled  it  upon  the  clothes  of  the  person.  If 
defiled  hands  had  been  dipped  into  the  water-pots,  both 
the  water  and  the  pots  would  have  been  defiled,  and  the 
water  would  have  been  thrown  out  and  the  pots  would 
have  been  broken.     (Numbers  xix.  22 ;  Leviticus  xv.  12.) 

In  Second  Kings  iii.  11  we  read:  "Here  is  Blisha 
the  son  of  Shafat,  who  poured  water  on  the  hands  of 
Elijah."  Elisha  was  the  servant  or  minister  of  Elijah, 
and  when  Elijah  washed  his  hands,  EHsha  poured  the 
water  on  them.  This  shows  the  custom  in  washing  the 
hands  among  the  Jews.  We  have  seen  the  same  custom 
referred  to  by  Sozomen,  when  speaking  of  the  acts  of  the 
Empress  Helena,  who,  he  says,  "assembled  the  sacred 
virgins  at  a  feast,  ministered  to  them  at  supper,  pre- 
sented them  with  food,  poured  water  on  their  hands, 
and  performed  other  similar  services  customary  on  such 
occasions."  This  shows  the  custom  of  pouring  water  on 
the  hands  in  purifications  at  feasts.  The  same  custom 
prevails  to-day  in  Bible  lands.     Dr.  Fairfield  says : 

"The  method  of  washing  hands  at  the  present  day 
as  I  found  it  in  Syria  and  in  Turkey  is  very  suggestive  of 
what  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  was  the  custom  in 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      203 

Bible  lands  and  Bible  times.  If  you  enter  a  house,  the 
servant  appears  with  a  washbowl  and  pitcher.  But  you 
are  never  expected  to  pour  water  into  the  bowl  and  wash, 
as  our  habit  is.  The  empty  bowl  is  put  into  a  place  con- 
venient for  you  to  hold  your  hands  over  it,  the  attendant 
then  pours  the  water  on  your  hands,  and  you  wash  them 
with  soap  or  without,  and  the  dirty  water  falls  into  the 
bowl.  It  would  shock  every  Oriental  idea  were  you  to 
dip  your  hands  into  the  bowl  unless  you  were  without 
possible  means  of  doing  otherwise.  The  water  poured 
from  the  pitcher  becomes  running  water,  and  your  hands 
are  cleansed  in  that  way."  ("Letters  on  Baptism," 
p.  107.) 

Dr.  Fairfield  gives  us  a  quotation  from  Mr.  M.  C. 
Hazard,  of  a  conversation  between  him  and  a  Jewish 
rabbi  concerning  Mark  vii.  3,  reported  in  The  Congrega- 
tionalist.     Mr.  Hazard  says: 

"It  was  a  feeUng  that  the  real  explanation  of  this 
passage  had  not  yet  been  reached  that  led  me  several 
years  ago  to  take  the  passage  to  a  noted  Jewish  rabbi  for 
interpretation.  He  read  it  in  the  Greek,  and  then  con- 
temptuously said:  'It  is  evident  that  Mark  did  not  know 
what  he  was  talking  about.'  Catching  my  breath  at 
such  an  easy  disposition  of  the  matter  and  of  the  author 
of  the  second  Gospel,  I  approached  the  subject  from  a 
new  direction.  I  asked  the  rabbi  whether  it  was  true 
that  now  the  Pharisees  do  not  eat  except  as  they  first 
baptize  their  hands.  He  replied  in  the  affirmative,  and, 
on  my  request  for  more  information,  said:  'But  we  do 
not  baptize  them  as  you  do  in  a  quiet  pool,  but  in  run- 
ning water,  either  in  a  natural  stream  or  in  water  flowing 
from  a  hydrant,  or  in  water  poured  from  some  vessel  by 
main  strength  from  one  hand  upon  the  other.'  The  ex- 
pression 'by  main  strength'  immediately  caught  my  atten- 


204       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

tion,  and  I  said  to  him :  '  Rabbi/  I  thought  that  you  said 
that  Mark  did  not  know  what  he  was  writing  about.  When 
he  says  "from  the  fist,"  doesn't  he  mean  exactly  what 
you  have  now  said?  Ordinarily  it  would  have  been  im- 
possible in  Mark's  day  for  anyone  to  have  baptized  his 
hands  at  home  in  running  water,  except  as  he  poured  it 
out  of  some  pitcher  or  basin  "from  the  fist"  upon  the 
other  hand.'  The  rabbi  thought  for  a  moment,  a  d, 
with  a  candor  which  much  commended  this  modern 
Pharisee,  said:  *I  was  wrong;  that  is  what  Mark  did 
mean.'  " 

Mr.  Hazard  then  goes  on  to  say:  "The  rabbi  had 
awakened  my  curiosity  in  saying  that  the  Jews  never 
baptized  their  hands  except  in  running  water,  and  I  asked 
him  for  the  reason  of  that.  His  reply  was,  that  'still 
water  represents  death  and  corruption,  and  running 
water  life  and  the  quickening  influences  of  God's  Spirit.' 
*In  any  of  their  ceremonial  lavations,'  I  inquired,^  'do 
any  of  the  Jews  lay  any  emphasis  upon  the  amount  in 
which  they  baptize  ? '  *  None ;  the  tiniest  stream  of  water 
would  suffice  for  the  most  complete  ceremonial  lavation.' " 
{Ibid.,  pp.  io8,  109,  no.  III.) 

Two  things  we  want  to  call  particular  attention  to  in 
the  testimony  of  this  eminent  Jewish  rabbi : 

(i)  For  all  their  ceremonial  purifications,  the  Jews 
must  have  running  water.  If  they  have  no  natural 
stream  or  hydrant,  they  make  it  run  by  pouring  it  from 
a  pitcher  or  some  other  vessel. 

(2)  The  AMOUNT  of  water  for  their  baptisms  cuts 
no  figure.  The  tiniest  stream  flowing  from  a  hydrant, 
or  poured  from  a  pitcher  or  other  vessel,  is  sufficient  for 
the  most  complete  baptism  of  the  person. 

What  becomes  of  the  idea  of  immersion  in  the  Jewish 
baptisms  in  the  light  of  the  testimony  of  this  eminent 
rabbi? 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      205 

The  real  washing  from  sin  is  in  or  by  "the  blood  of 
the  Lamb  " ;  and  that  washing  is  always  done  by  "sprink- 
WNG,"  never  by  plunging  or  imme^rsion.  We  have 
much  of  plunging  in  ''the  fountain  of  blood''  and  in  "the 
cleansing  stream"  in  our  hymns,  but  not  a  word  of  it  in 
the  Word  of  God!  All  such  expressions  ought  to  be 
taken  out  of  our  hymns,  for  they  are  false  and  misleading, 
and  teach  our  young  people  a  false  theology  in  regard  to 
the  method  of  purification  from  sin,  and  suggest  the  idea 
of  plunging  or  immersion  as  the  proper  mode  of  baptism, 
as  the  emblem  of  the  purifying  of  the  soul  from  sin  by 
plunging  in  the  fountain  or  stream  of  spiritual  cleansing. 

In  Revelation  i.  5  we  read:  "Unto  Him  that  loved 
us  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  His  own  blood."  Here 
we  have  kva-avri  (lusanti),  from  louo,  to  wash.  In  Reve- 
lation vii.  13-14  we  read:  "And  one  of  the  elders  an- 
swered, saying  unto  me,  What  are  these  which  are  arrayed 
in  white  robes?  and  whence  came  they?  And  I  said 
unto  him.  Sir,  thou  knowest.  And  he  said  to  me.  These 
are  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  have 
washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of 
the  Lamb."  Here  we  have  Kat  e-n-Xwav  (eplunan),  from 
ttXvvo  (pluno),  to  wash.  In  First  Corinthians  vi.  11  we 
read:  "And  such  were  some  of  you;  but  ye  are  washed, 
but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  -and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  Here 
we  have  aTreXova-ecr&e  (apelousesthe) ,  from  louo,  to  wash. 
Here  we  have  both  louo,  to  wash  in  a  general  sense,  and 
pluno,  to  wash  clothes,  used  to  express  the  "washing 
away  of  sins." 

The  question,  then,  is:  How  is  this  washing  of  the 
soul  from  sin,  and  this  washing  of  the  robes  of  the  saints, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  accomplished?  What  is  the 
mode  of  this  washing? 


2o6       TJie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

In  Hebrews  x.  22  we  read :  "Let  us  draw  near  with  a 
true  heart  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our  hearts 
SPRINKLED  from  an  evil  conscience  and  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water."  Here  the  washing  of  the  heart  "from 
an  evil  conscience"  is  declared  to  be  done  by  sprinkling. 
That  is  the  mode  of  this  washing. 

In  First  Peter  i.  2  we  read:  "Elect  according  to  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the 
BLOOD  OF  JESUS  Christ."  Here,  again,  the  washing  from 
sin  ' 'in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb"  is  done  by  sprinkling. 

In  Hebrews  xii.  24  we  read:  "And  to  Jesus  the 
mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of  sprink- 
ling, that  speaketh  better  things  than  the  blood  of 
Abel."  Here  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  that  washes  away 
sins,  is  called  "the  blood  of  sprinkling."  And  it  is 
never  applied  by  any  other  mode  but  sprinkling. 

Let  not  immersionists  say  any  more,  that  a  religious 
washing  must  necessarily  imply  an  immersion,  for  here 
the  most  important  religious  washing  in  the  universe,  the 
washing  of  the  soul  from  sin,  is  uniformly  done  by  sprink- 
ling !  Don't  forget  that  both  louo  and  pluno  are  used  to 
express  this  washing,  which  is  always  done  by  sprink- 
ling !  We  need  hardly  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader 
to  the  fact  that  the  preposition  iv  (en)  in  both  the  pas- 
sages from  Revelation  is  used  in  the  instrumental  sense, 
and  should  have  been  translated  "with."  That  would 
have  accorded  with  the  fact,  as  well  as  with  the  proper 
rule  of  language ;  for  the  heart  is  sprinkled  with  the  blood , 
and  not  sprinkled  in  it. 

In  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  sin,  both  parts   of. 
the  purification  are  done  by  affusion.     The  washing  away 
of  sin  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  is  done  by  sprinkling. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      207 

The  renewing  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  done  by 
POURING.     (Titus  iii.  5-6.) 

Now  we  ask:     If  the  real  washing,  the  washing  away 
of  sin  from  the  soul,  is  done  by  sprinkling,  and  the  re- 
newing or  regeneration  of  the  heart  is  done  by  pouring, 
by  what  rule  of  analogy,  logic,  fitness  of  things,  or  common 
sense  would  you  have  the  emblem  of  this  cleansing  and 
purification  done  by  immersion?     Ought  there  not  to  be 
agreement  between  the  thing  done  within  and  that  which 
is  the  outward  emblem  of  it  in  mode?     If  the  inward, 
spiritual  washing  can  be  and  is  done  by  sprinkling  or 
affusion,  cannot  and  ought  not  the   outward  washing 
which  represents  it  be  done  by  affusion?     Would  not 
this  be  the  appropriate  way  to  represent  it?     It  seems  to 
me  that  no  argument  could  be  made  clearer  to  prove  any- 
thing than  the  argument  here  is  to  prove  that  the  religious 
washing  of   baptism  is  Scripturally  performed  by  affu- 
sion.    But  someone  may  say:      "You  have  two  modes 
of  baptism— sprinkling  and  pouring,  and  to  be  Script- 
ural you  must  baptize  every  candidate  by  both  modes.'' 
To  this  we  reply :    There  is  no  difference  as  to  mode.     As 
we  have  shown  in  another  place,  the  mode  is  the   same. 
There  is  only  difference  in  degree.      Of  a  light  shower 
we  say,  ''It  sprinkles";   of  a  heavy  shower  we  say,  ''It 
pours."     But  the  mode  is  the  same.     So  this  objection  is 

groundless. 

I  want  to  call  attention  again,  in  this  connection,  to 
the  fact  that  the  Jewish  baptisms,  washings,  or  purifica- 
tions were  nearly  all  simple;  sprinklings.  Take  the  case 
of  purifying  from  a  dead  body,  in  The  Wisdom  of  Syriac, 
xxxiv.  30:  "He  that  is  baptized  from  a  dead  body,  and 
touches  it  again,  what  is  he  profited  by  his  washing?" 
Here  the  baptism  from  a  dead  body  is  called  "a  washing," 
and  yet  that  baptism  or  washing  was  a  simple  sprinkling 


2o8       Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

of  the  water  of  separation  on  him,  on  the  "third  day  and 
on  the  seventh  day,"  and  he  was  clean.  (Numbers  ix. 
12-13.)  Here  a  ritual  washing  was  done  by  sprinkling. 
Baptizomenos  and  loutro  are  both  used  to  express  an  act 
of  SPRINKLING.  Baptism  as  a  washing  is  thus  proven  to 
be  an  act  of  sprinkling. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Onk  Lord,  On^  Faith,  One  Baptism. 

There  is  one  more  passage  in  the  New  Testament 
that  is  looked  upon  by  immersionists  as  decisive  in  regard 
to  their  mode  of  baptism.  It  is  Ephesians  iv.  5.  We  will 
quote  the  connection  from  verses  3-6 :  ' '  Endeavoring  to 
keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace.  There 
is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one 
hope  of  your  calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism, 
one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through 
all,  and  in  you  all." 

What  connection  this  passage  can  have  with  the 
mode  of  baptism  I  am  utterly  unable  to  see.  Neither 
water  baptism  nor  its  mode  is  the  subject  under  consider- 
ation by  the  apostle,  but  the  spiritual  unity  of  the  Church, 
as  anyone  can  see  by  an  examination  of  the  passage. 
There  is  just  as  little  ground  to  bring  forward  this  passage 
as  a  proof  text  in  favor  of  immersion  as  Mr.  Campbell 
had  to  bring  it  forward  as  a  proof  text  in  favor  of  bap- 
tism "for  the  remission  of  sins" ;  and  yet  he  did  it.  It  is 
the  sixth  and  last  passage  that  he  adduces  to  prove  that 
baptism  "is  for  the  remission  of  sins."  His  argument  is: 
"Now,  if  there  be  but  one  baptism — and  it  appears  that 
both  the  New  Testament  dispensations  of  baptism,  by 
John  and  by  the  apostles,  clearly  affirm  a  connection 
between  baptism  and  remission  of  sins — must  it  not 
follow  that  the  only  divinely  instituted  baptism  is  for 
the  remission  of  sins?"  This  argument  is  founded  upon 
an  "if,"  and  an  "if,"  and  is  worth  just  as  much  as  the 

209 


2IO       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"ifs"  upon  which  it  is  founded.  There  is  no  more  con- 
nection between  this  passage  and  the  remission  of  sins 
than  there  is  between  it  and  an  ecHpse  of  the  moon. 
Nor  is  there  any  more  relation  between  it  and  immersion 
than  there  is  between  it  and  the  remission  of  sins.  Yet 
Mr.  Campbell  could  see  remission  of  sins  wherever  he 
could  see  the  word  "baptism,"  and  our  immersionist 
friends  can"  see  immersion  wherever  they  can  see  the 
word  ''baptism,"  notwithstanding  we  have  given  ex- 
ample after  example  in  the  Scriptures  where  it  means  to 
SPRINKLE  or  to  POUR,  and  not  a  single  case  can  they  give 
where  it  necessarily  means  to  immerse  in  all  the  Bible. 
But  the  strong  point  they  make  with  their  ignorant  fol- 
lowers on  this  passage  is,  they  tell  them  that  we  have 
three  baptisms,  sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersion,  and 
the  Bible  says  there  is  "on^  baptism,"  and  that  is  im- 
mersion, and  they  have  it.  With  them  baptism  is  mode 
or  action,  and  nothing  else.  With  us  it  is  a  purification, 
and  mode  has  nothing  to  do  with  its  essence. 

But  this  passage  does  not  say  that  there  is  "but  ON^ 
baptism"  in  the  Church  of  God.  Read  the  passage  care- 
fully, and  you  will  see  that  this  is  a  forced  construction  of 
the  passage.  Remember  that  in  a  former  chapter  I 
proved  by  the  Word  of  God  that  there  are  Two  baptisms 
among  "the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ"  that 
abide  permanently  in  the  Church:  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  by  which  we  are  "baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  into  His  one)  body"  (First  Corinthians  xii.  13); 
and  the  baptism  of  water,  in  token  that  we  have  received 
that  baptism  that  has  purified  us  and  put  us  into  Christ. 
So  this  interpretation  must  fail. 

Now,  if  our  immersionist  friends  contend  that  this 
passage  teaches  that  there  is  "but  one  baptism"  in  the 
Church  of  Christ,  then  I  must  insist  that  this  one  baptism 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      211 

is  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  the  baptism  of 
water,  and  the  passage  will  bear  me  out  in  my  contention, 
for  it  is  the  spiritual  unity  of  the  Church  that  is  here 
being  illustrated  by  the  apostle.  "Endeavoring  to  keep 
the  UNITY  OF  THE  SPIRIT."  Here  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  "unity"  Paul  is  speaking  of.  It 
is  not  an  organic  unity  of  the  body  of  Christ,  but  it  is 
a  spiritual  unity.  How  is  this  spiritual  unity  accom- 
plished? Paul  answers  himself :  "For  by  one  Spirit  are 
we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  It  is  plain  that  Paul  is 
here  speaking  of  that  "onK  baptism"  that  makes  us 
"one  body,"  and  that  is  the  rkal  baptism — the  .baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  which  water  baptism  is  the  symbol. 
So  this  passage  has  no  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism 
by  immersion  or  by  any  other  mode. 

But  the  charge  that  we  practice  three  baptisms, 
while  Paul  says  "onB  baptism,"  has  great  weight  with 
ignorant  minds,  and  we  are  partly  to  blame  for  it,  in  ad- 
mitting that  immersion,  sprinkling,  and  pouring  were  all 
practiced  by  the  apostles,  and  in  that  sense  are  Scriptural 
modes  of  baptism.  With  immersionists,  I  believe  and  am 
sure  that  there  was  but  "one"  mode  of  baptism  practiced 
by  the  apostles,  and  that  mode  was  affusion,  and  not 

IMMERSION. 

After  the  most  painstaking  and  careful  investigation 
for  more  than  a  half -century,  I  have  been  unable  to  find 
a  single  particle  of  evidence  that  immersion  was  ever 
practiced  in  the  whole  history  of  Bible  baptisms,  from 
Moses  to  the  end  of  the  apostolic  age,  but  all  to  the  con  - 
trary.  "Well,"  says  one,  "why  do  you  practice  immer- 
sion at  all  then?"  I  frankly  confess  that  it  is  an  incon- 
sistency that  may  be  defended  only  on  the  ground  that 
the  mode  is  not  essential  to  the  ordinance.      In  my  opening 


212       Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

speech  in  my  debate  with  Mr.  Braden,  in  Vienna,  111.,  in 
August,  1868,  I  said: 

"It  is  well  known  that  we  hold  that  no  specific  mode 
is  essential  to  the  Christian  ordinance.  Baptism,  we  con- 
tend, may  be  performed  properly  and  Scripturally  by  a 
diversity  of  modes:  by  pouring,  sprinkling,  or  by  immer- 
sion, once,  twice,  or  thrice.  The  mode  we  consider  not  es- 
sential to  the  thing.  Baptism  is  one  thing,  while  its 
mode  of  administration  is  quite  another  thing.  But  while 
I  admit  that  immersion  may  be  Scriptural  baptism,  I  do 
not  admit  that  it  is  Scriptural  in  the  sense  of  it  being  an 
apostolic  institution.  I  do  not  admit  that  John  the  Baptist 
ever  immersed  anybody;  I  do  not  admit  that  it  was  ever  prac- 
ticed in  apostolic  times;  and  the  only  ground  upon  which  I 
can  admit  it  to  he  Scriptural  is  that  the  Scriptures  leave  the 
mode  undetermined.''  ("Braden  and  Hughey  Debate," 
pp.  8-9.) 

That  was  thirty-eight  years  ago.  I  wish  to  modify 
the  last  clause  of  the  last  sentence.  After  thirty-eight 
years  of  further  study,  /  cannot  admit  that  the  Scriptures 
leave  the  mode  undetermined.  I  think  they  determine  the 
question  of  the  mode  of  baptism  as  fully  as  anything  can 
be  determined  by  evidence,  and  hence  I  wish  to  modify 
that  statement. 

If  this  passage  refers  to  mode  when  it  says  "one  bap- 
tism," then  it  means  the  "one"  mode  by  which  God 
always  administered  it,  whether  by  water,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Israelites  (First  Corinthians  x.  2),  or  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  (Acts  ii.  17-33,  x.  44,  and  xi.  15-16).  Whatever 
view  we  may  take  of  this  passage,  it  utterly  fails  to  sus- 
tain the  claims  of  immersionists.  We  have  gone  through 
the  entire  New  Testament,  and  have  failed  to  find  a 
single  authority  for  the  claims  of  immersionists.  Im- 
mersion has  no  foundation  in  the  Word  of  God. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

History  of  thk  Mode  of  Baptism. 
It  is  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  immersion  that 
Christian  baptism  was  originally  performed  by  immersion, 
and  many  Pedo-Baptist  writers  have,  without  any  his- 
torical warrant,  admitted  this  claim.  Dr.  MoshKim,  in 
his  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  written  about  the  middle  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  on  page  28,  speaking  of  the  first 

century,  says: 

"The  sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered  in  this 
century,  without  the  public  assemblies,  in  places  ap- 
pointed and  prepared  for  that  purpose,  and  was  per- 
formed by  an  immersion  of  the  whole  body  in  the  bap- 
tismal font." 

This  passage  from  Dr.  Mosheim's  "Ecclesiastical 
History"  has  given  great  comfort  to  our  immersionist 
friends,  and  they  quote  it  with  all  the  assurance  of  an 
historical  fact.     On  this  statement  of    Dr.  Mosheim  we 

remark : 

1.  There  has  not  come  down  to  us  from  the  first 
century  a  single  line  or  word  on  the  mode  of  baptism, 
outside  of  the  New  Testament,  and  there  is  not  the 
shadow  of  a  warrant  for  it  in  the  New  Testament. 

2.  The  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament,  as  we  have 
seen,  all  took  place  on  the  spot  where  the  conversions 
took  place,  and  there  is  never  a  hint  that  they  went  in 
search  of  a  place  where  there  were  the  facilities  for 
immersion  to  baptize  their  converts, 

213 


214       Th^  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

3.  The  use  of  baptismal  fonts  was  unknown  in  the 
first  century.     They  were  an  institution  of  later  date. 

4.  Dr.  Mosheim  seems  to  take  for  granted,  without 
any  authority,  that  the  practice  of  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries  was  the  practice  of  the  first  century  also.  But 
we  know  now  it  was  quite  different  in  many  respects. 

5.  Many  discoveries  have  been  made  touching  this 
question,  by  Christian  archaeologists,  since  Dr.  Mosheim 
wrote  his  famous  "Church  History,"  and  much  light  has 
been  thrown  upon  this  question  that  he  did  not  have. 
This  is  the  only  apology  I  can  find  for  this  wholly  un- 
justifiable statement. 

6.  Over  against  this  statement  of  Dr.  Mosheim, 
made  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  we  place 
the  statement  of  Prof.  William  G.  Williams,  D.D.,  pro- 
fessor of  the  Greek  language  and  literature  in  the  Ohio 
Wesleyan  University  for  fifty  years,  one  of  the  finest 
Greek  scholars  this  country  has  ever  produced,  made  in 
his  book  on  "Baptism,"  written  in  1901.  On  page  25 
he  says : 

"The  Church  began  with  sprinkling,  and  then  lapsed 
for  a  time  into  the  gross  ritualism  of  immersion ;  but  now 
has  come  back  to  the  ancient  and  simple  form  in  which 
the  apostles  baptized  their  converts." 

Dr.  Williams'  statement  must  have  great  weight 
with  thinking  minds,  when  we  take  into  consideration  his 
great  scholarship  and  extensive  research  on  the  subject. 

My  first  historical  argument  to  prove  that  the  an- 
cient or  primitive  mode  of  baptism  was  by  affusion  is 
drawn  from  the  imperishable  monuments  of  early  Chris- 
tian antiquity.  There  are  two  parts  or  branches  of  the 
argument : 

I.  The  ancient  pictures  of  baptism,  from  the  second 
to  the  tenth  century,  every  one  of  which  that  has  yet  been 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      215 

found  represents  the  baptism  of  Christ  by  John  and  other 
baptisms  as  performed  by  affusion;  not  one  represents 
any  one  as  being  baptized  by  immersion  until  the  ninth 
or  tenth  century,  and  that  is  found  in  Russia,  and  it  is 
doubtful  if  it  is  a  representation  of  immersion,  as  the  ad- 
ministrator is  not  in  the  water,  but  standing  on  the  bank, 
reaching  out  his  hand  and  touching  the  head  of  the  man 
in  the  water.  This  agrees  with  all  the  other  pictures  of 
baptism,  which  always  represent  the  administrator  as 
standing  on  the  bank  and  pouring  the  water  on  the  head 
of  the  person  baptized,  when  he  is  standing  or  kneeling 
in  the  water;  but  in  some  of  these  pictures  both  the 
person  baptized  and  the  administrator  are  standing  on 
the  land  and  no  water  is  in  sight,  except  what  is  in  a  vase 
or  bowl  or  font  sitting  by,  or  in  the  pitcher  or  vase  from 
which  the  administrator  pours  the  water  on  the  head  of 
the  person  baptized. 

2.  The  most  ancient  baptismal  fonts  which  have 
been  found  in  the  ruins  of  the  most  ancient  churches  are 
just  such  fonts  as  are  to-day  found  in  Presbyterian  and 
Methodist  churches,  not  large  enough  to  immerse  even  a 
baby  in,  much  less  an  adult.  This  argument,  when 
clearly  presented,  is  conclusive  and  unanswerable.  Here 
there  can  be  no  controversy  over  the  meaning  of  verbs, 
nouns,  or  prepositions.  The  object  lesson  is  presented  to 
the  eye,  and  through  the  eye  to  the  understanding. 

Dr.  Richard  Robinson,  of  Cambridge,  England,  in 
his  "History  of  Baptism,"  about  A.  D.  1780,  was  the 
first,  I  believe,  who  introduced  this  branch  of  evidence 
into  this  controversy,  and  he  was  an  ardent  immersionist. 
On  pages  141 -2  he  says: 

"The  illustrious  antiquary.  Bishop  Andrew  ab  Aqui- 
no, observed  some  singular  representations  of  baptism 
on  a  tomb  at  Chiaia,  a  villa  near  Naples,  belonging  to 


2i6       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

his  relative,  Prince  Caramanoi.  He  ordered  drafts  to 
be  taken  of  two,  and  sent  them  to  Rome  to  the  celebrated 
Ciampini,  who  showed  them  to  Fabretti  and  Mabillon. 
The  three  connoisseurs  supposed  them  to  be  representa- 
tions of  baptism  by  immersion  and  superfusion,  or  pouring 
water  all  over,  administered  by  a  layman.  In  one  there 
are  eleven  human  figures;  some  appear  to  be  intended 
for  Romans,  because  they  are  clean-shaven  —  others 
Greeks  or  Lombards,  because  they  have  long  beards.  In 
the  middle  stands  a  large  labrum,  and  in  it  a  prince  and 
princess  are  kneeling,  both  naked,  except  the  coronets  on 
their  heads.  The  water  is  supposed  to  rise  above  their 
waists,  while  a  Roman  in  a  lay  habit  is  standing  and 
pouring  water  plentifully  out  of  a  pitcher  upon  the  head 
of  the  prince,  who  lifts  up  his  hands  as  if  in  prayer,  and 
who  by  his  beard  should  be  either  a  Greek  or  a  Lombard. 
In  the  other  there  is  the  same  number  of  persons.  A 
laver  of  another  form  stands  by.  Four  are  kneeling  on 
the  ground,  three  clothed,  and  praying,  the  fourth  naked, 
except  a  loose  covering  round  the  middle;  one  pouring 
the  water  on  the  head  of  the  naked  person  out  of  a 
pitcher,  and  the  rest  waiting  with  habits  to  put  upon  the 
naked  newly  baptized  when  the  ceremony  is  over.  Father 
Mabillon  observes  that  these  resemble  that  of  the  baptism 
of  Romanus  by  St.  Lawrence  at  Rome,  and  that  they  are 
intended  either  to  exhibit  a  Greek  baptism,  where,  besides 
the  trine  immersion,  superfusion  was  practiced,[or  a  bap- 
tism where  the  laver  was  too  small,  and  where  the  body 
was  immersed  in  the  laver,  and  the  head  was  immersed  by 
superfusion.  .  .  .  Everything  had  a  beginning,  and 
there  must  have  been  a  first  artist  who  introduced  em- 
blems of  baptism.  He  thought,  no  doubt,  he  should  give 
a  just  notion  of  immersion  (for  he  could  mean  no  other, 
as  no  other  was  in  practice)  by  placing  the  lower  part  of  a 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      217 

person  in  water,  either  in  a  river  or  a  bath,  and  by  show- 
ing another  person  pouring  water  over  the  upper  part  out 
of  the  water ;  for  what  could  he  mean,  except  that  to  be 
baptized  was  to  wet  all  over,  to  cover  the  whole  man 
with  water?" 

On  this  remarkable  quotation  from  Dr.  Robinson 
we  wish  to  remark: 

1.  It  takes  a  most  brilliant  and  thoroughly  im- 
mersed imagination  to  see  an  emblem  of  immersion  in 
these  plain  and  simple  pictures  of  baptism  by  pouring. 

2.  Dr.  Robinson  remarks  of  the  artist  whom  he 
thought  first  began  making  representations  of  baptism: 
"He  thought,  no  doubt,  that  he  should  give  a  just  notion  of 
immersion  (for  he  could  mean  no  other,  as  no  other 
WAS  in  practice)."  This  is  the  coolest  and  most  com- 
plete begging  of  the  question  I  have  ever  met  with.  The 
question  in  debate  is.  What  was  the  ancient  mode  of  bap- 
tism? was  it  immersion,  or  was  it  affusion?  Dr.  Rob- 
inson coolly  assumes  that  it  was  immersion,  and  that 
there  was  no  other  practice  in  the  ancient  Church,  and 
therefore  the  artist  who  drew  these  pictures  of  baptism 
by  pouring  thought,  no  doubt,  that  he  was  giving  a 
JUST  NOTION  OF  IMMERSION !  This  is  the  rarest  specimen 
in  the  art  of  controversy  I  have  ever  met  with  in  all  my 
experience.  But  it  is  at  par  with  a  large  per  cent  of  this 
same  author's  arguments.  A  cause  must  be  hard  pressed 
when  its  leading  advocates  resort  to  such  methods  of  [de- 
fense. Yet  Dr.  J.  R.  Graves  republished  this  book,  and 
sent  it  out  as  a  standard  history  of  baptism ! 

3.  His  remark  about  the  man  pouring  water  plenti- 
fully out  of  a  pitcher  on  the  head  of  the  prince,  "so  that 
the  upper  part  of  the  body  was  immersed  or  thoroughly 
wet  by  superfusion,"  existed  only  in  his  mind.  In  many 
of  these  pictures  of  baptism  (as  in  this  case)  the  pitcher 

—15— 


2i8       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

or  other  vessel  used  is  not  large  enough  to  pour  water  over 
the  upper  part  of  the  body,  and  in  some  only  the  hand  is 
used,  so  this  part  of  his  argument  is  gone.  His  attempt 
to  get  the  man  kneeling  on  the  ground  and  the  other  man 
pouring  the  water  on  his  head  immersed  is  unique  and 
original.  The  vase  or  font  that  sits  by  on  the  ground  is 
not  large  enough  to  immerse  a  babe  in,  much  less  the  body 
of  a  man.  Then  the  idea  of  immersing  a  man's  body, 
and  not  his  head,  and  afterwards  immersing  it  by  SUPER- 
FusiON,  is  certainly  a  new  way  of  immersion,  and  one  that 
would  not  be  accepted  by  any  immersionist  Church  of  our 
times.  To  such  ridiculous  subterfuges  are  the  ablest  ad- 
vocates of  immersion  driven  in  their  eagerness  to  uphold 
and  defend  their  utterly  indefensible  position. 

4.  The  person  standing  or  kneeling  in  the  water  is 
no  part  of  the  baptism.  That  is  the  position  the  party 
assumes  himself  for  baptism.  The  baptism  is  the  act 
performed  by  the  baptizer  upon  him,  and  that  is  always 
by  affusion. 

5.  In  all  these  baptisms  the  baptizer  is  never  rep- 
resented as  being  in  the  water,  whether  the  baptism  is 
performed  in  a  river,  or  in  a  baptistery,  or  in  a  private 
bathtub.  This  completely  upsets  the  whole  theory  of 
immersion. 

6.  In  some  of  these  pictures,  as  we  shall  see,  the 
baptized  are  not  in  the  water  at  all,  but  on  the  land,  with 
no  water  in  sight,  except  that  which  was  used  in  pouring 
upon  the  head  of  the  baptized.  This  fact  completely 
sets  aside  the  idea  of  immersion. 

7.  Dr.  Robinson  tells  us  the  Greeks  practiced  su- 
PERFusiON  after  trine  immersion;  pouring,  then,  was 
necessary  to  complete  the  baptism.  What  then  becomes 
of  the  exclusive  claims  of  immersion? 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian,  Baptism.       219 

Dr.  Robinson  remarks  on  page  144:  "There  are 
many  representations  of  baptisms  in  old  church  windows, 
and  all  in  favor  of  immersion."  Yet  he  furnishes  but 
two  pictures  of  baptism,  the  one  we  have  been  discussing, 
and  one  the  baptism  of  Christ  on  a  baptistery  in  Venice, 
where  Jesus  is  standing  in  the  Jordan,  and  John  standing 
on  the  bank  touching  the  head  of  Jesus  with  his  right 
hand.     Surely  this  is  not  a  representation  of  immersion. 

If  Dr.  Robinson  could  have  found  a  picture  of  bap- 
tism in  all  the  range  of  Christian  antiquity  that  repre- 
sented both  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized  standing  in  the 
water,  and  the  baptizer  in  the  act  of  plunging  the  bap- 
tized under  the  water,  would  he  not  have  produced  \V 
The  fact  that  he  failed  to  produce  one  such  picture  proves 
clearly  that  he  was  unable  to  find  such  an  one,  and  such 
an  one  has  not  been  produced  by  immersionists. 

There  is  a  work  on  "Baptism  and  Baptisteries,"  by 
WoLFRKD  Nelson  Cote,  missionary  in  Rome,  published 
by  the  Bible  and  Publication  Society,  530  Arch  Street, 
Philadelphia,  and  dedicated  to  the  Southern  Baptist 
Convention.  It  is  without  date,  but  was  published  about 
thirty-five  or  forty  years  ago.  The  frontispiece  is  the  pict- 
ure of  the  baptism  of  Christ,  found  in  the  Chapel  of  the 
Baptistery  in  the  Catacomb  of  St.  Ponziano,  Rome,  which 
you  will  see  a  few  pages  further  on.  Jesus  is  represented 
as  standing  in  the  river  Jordan ;  John  is  standing  on  the 
bank,  with  his  right  hand  on  the  head  of  Jesus,  with  a 
small  object  in  his  hand,  probably  a  shell,  from  which  he 
is  pouring  water  on  His  head.  He  gives  us  two  pictures 
which  he  claims  represent  baptism  by  immersion,  one  of 
which  he  says  is  "probably  of  the  ninth  century,"  and 
represents  the  baptism  of  a  prince  of  Bulgaria  or  Bohemia. 
The  baptism  of  the  Bulgarian  or  Bohemian  prince  was 
evidently  in  a  baptistery.     The  candidate  is  standing  in 


220      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

the  water  up  to  his  waist,  while  the  minister  is  standing 
by,  and  his  right  hand  is  touching  the  forehead  of  the 
candidate,  and  his  left  hand  is  extended  in  front  of  his 
shoulder.  He  is  not  in  the  attitude  of  immersing  him, 
but  of  having  dipped  the  water  with  his  right  hand  and 


^^^k^ 

J[ 

WW 

^^      ^ 

^^ 

A^r>^  J^ 

^^ 

/[^^■^^  ^— *— » 

~  1  ^^ 

l^^^%^j^^ 

ir^siy 

^S  rZv/7^//A    Wj 

^  ^^ulsExi 

[    ^    fT 

V/a/  J 

ffl 

4 
1 

'¥i 

-^-1 

1 

^ 

J 

^^31 

^ 

UJpL 

ri 

^ 

mi.__ 

Fig.  I . — Baptism  of  a  Convkrt  by  Cyril,  Missionary  in 

Bulgaria. 

putting  it  upon  the  forehead  of  the  candidate.  The  arms 
of  the  candidate  are  hanging  down  by  his  sides.  If  im- 
mersion had  been  represented,  the  minister's  left  hand 
would  have  been  at  the  back  of  the  candidate's  head,  and 
the  candidate's  arms  would  have  been  folded  across  his 
breast,  and  the  minister's  right  hand  would  have  clasped 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 


221 


the  hands  or  arms  of  the  candidate,  as  takes  place  in  every 
case  of  immersion.  But  this  is  not  the  representation  in 
this  case.  Everything  in  the  position  and  attitude  of 
both  the  candidate  and  the  administrator  indicates  that 
the  baptism  was  performed  by  affusion,  and  not  by  im- 
mersion. This  case  can  furnish  no  support  for  the  prac- 
tice of  immersion.  The  other  is  a  baptism  according  to 
the  Russian  rite,  and  is  represented  as  being  performed 
in  a  river  or  stream.     The  candidate  is  standing  in  the 


Fig.  2. — Ceremony  of  Baptism  According  to  the  Russian 
Rite.    From  a'Runic  Manuscript  op  the  13TH 
OR  14TH  Century. 

water  up  to  his  waist ;  the  minister  is  standing  on  the  bank, 
his  right  hand  reaching  out  and  touching  the  forehead 
of  the  candidate,  as  if  he  had  dipped  up  the  water  from 
the  stream  and  put  it  on  his  head.  His  left  hand  is  not 
visible,  and  his  body  is  somewhat  inclined  forward,  as  he 
reaches  his  hand  to  the  head  of  the  candidate.  This 
cannot  be  a  representation  of  baptism  by  immersion; 
but,  like  all  the  others  where  the  candidate  is  represented 


222      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

as  standing  in  the  water  and  the  administrator  standing 
on  the  bank,  it  is  a  representation  of  baptism  by  affusion — 
the  administrator  dipping  up  the  water  with  his  right 
hand  and  putting  it  upon  his  head.  No  example  of  im- 
mersion has  yet  been  found,  and  our  immersionist  friends 
have  come  down  in  their  search  to  the  fourteenth  century. 
Figures  i  and  2  are  the  pictures  that  Mr.  Cote  claims  rep- 
resent baptism  by  immersion.  The  reader  will  see  that, 
like  all  the  other  pictures  of  baptism  where  the  candidate 
is  represented  as  standing  in  the  water,  the  baptism  is 
performed  by  pouring,  and  not  by  immersion.  The  first 
is  the  baptism  of  the  Bulgarian  or  Bohemian  prince,  and 
Mr.  Cote  thinks  it  dates  from  the  eighth  or  ninth  century. 
The  second  is  the  baptism  after  the  Russian  rite.  (See 
pages  220  and  221,  ante,) 

We  will  now  take  up  the  ancient  pictures  of  baptism 
that  Mr.  Charles  Taylor  gives  us  in  his  "Apostolic 
Baptism,"  and  consider  their  weight. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      223 


I.    JESUS  Christ  Baptized  in  the  Jordan  by  John  Baptist. 

"This  picture  is  in  the  small  chapel  of  the  Catacomb 
of  Pontiatius,  called  the  'Chapel  of  the  Baptistery.'  Be- 
neath the  portraits  is  painted  one  of  those  crosses,  or- 
namented with  precious  stones,  called  GemmatcE;  to  the 
arms  of  which  are  hung  the  symbolical  characters  of 
Christ,  A  and  O.— Aringhi,  Roma  Sotterranea,  Tome  i. 

"The  lamb  is  introduced  in  allusion  to  'the  Lamb 
of  God';  and  the  single  angel  in  this  representation 
proves  that  it  is  a  work  of  the  most  remote  antiquity." 
(Taylor's  ' '  Apostolic  Baptism,"  facing  p.  2 11 .) 


224      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

The  chapel  is  a  small  room  hewn  out  of  the  tufa,  a  soft 
rock  that  may  be  cut  with  a  knife,  but  which  hardens  on 
being  brought  into  the  air.  The  baptismal  font  is  cut 
in  the  rock  just  beneath  the  picture,  and  in  it  the  candi- 
date stood  while  the  rite  was  being  performed.  Mr. 
WiTHROW  gives  us  the  dimensions  of  this  baptismal  font 
as  it  is  to-day:  "It  is  thirty-six  inches  long,  thirty-two 
inches  wide,  and  forty  inches  deep,  but  is  seldom  near 
full  of  water.  It  is  obviously  too  small  for  immersion, 
and  was  evidently  designed  for  administering  the  rite  as 
shown  in  the  fresco  which  accompanies  it."  (Withrow's 
"Catacombs  of  Rome,"  p.  537.) 

In  the  bottom  of  this  font  is  a  living  [stream,  usually 
only  a  few  inches  deep.  While  the  candidate  stood  in 
the  waters  of  the  baptistery,  the  administrator  poured 
water  on  his  head,  as  illustrated  by  the  fresco  on  the  wall 
just  above  him,  illustrating  Christ's  baptism  in  the 
Jordan  by  John  pouring  the  water  on  His  head  out  of  a 
shell  or  some  other  small  vessel,  which  he  holds  in  his 
right  hand.  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  this  picture,  while 
Jesus  is  represented  as  standing  in  the  water  up  to  His 
waist  and  John  as  standing  on  the  bank,  the  feet  of  John 
and  the  feet  of  Jesus  are  very  nearly  on  a  level.  This 
shows  that  the  artist  represented  the  Savior  thus  in  the 
water  as  a  covering  or  shade  for  the  nude  body  in  the 
picture,  and  not  to  show  that  Jesus  was  actually  in  the 
water  up  to  His  waist.  We  know  that  Jesus  was  not 
baptized  naked,  and  that  He  would  not  have  gone  into 
the  water  that  deep  with  His  clothes  on,  and  if  He  had, 
John  could  not  have  reached  Him  to  pour  the  water  on 
His  head,  nor  would  John's  feet  have  been  so  near  par- 
allel with  the  feet  of  Jesus  as  they  are  usually  repre- 
sented in  these  pictures. 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      225 
Here  is  another  picture  of  our  Lord's  baptism : 


II.    Baptism  of  Christ  in  Jordan. 


"This  representation  is  the  center-piece  of  the  dome 
of  the  Baptistery  at  Ravenna;  which  building  was 
erected  and  decorated  in  454."  (Taylor's  "Apostolic 
Baptism,"  p.  195.) 

Here  our  Lord  is  represented  as  standing  in  the  water 
up  to  or  near  His  waist,  while  John  is  standing  on  a  pro- 
truding rock,  pouring  water  on  His  head  out  of  a  shell; 
while  the  Holy  Spirit  descends  like  a  dove,  and  the 
mythological  figure,  representing  the  river  Jordan,  sits 
on  the  water  near  by. 


226      Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

Here  is  another  picture  of  the  baptism  of  our  Lord : 


Plate  III. 

"This  is  a  representation  in  mosaic  of  the  baptism 
of  Christ  in  Jordan,  preserved  in  the  church  in  Cosmedin, 
at  Ravenna,  which  was  erected  A.  D.  401. 

"In  the  center  is  Christ  our  Saviour  in  the  river 
Jordan.  On  a  rock  stands  John  the  Baptist,  in  his  left 
hand  is  a  bent  rod,  and  his  right  hand  holds  a  patera, 
shell;  from  which  he  pours  watkr  on  the  head  of  the 
Redeemer;  over  whom  descends  the  dove,  the  symbol  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  with  expanded  wings,  and  emitting  rays 
of   glory  and   grace."      (Taylor's   "Apostolic   Baptism," 

p.  I97-) 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       227 
Here  is  another  picture  of  our  Lord's  baptism: 


IV.    Jesus  Baptized  in  the  River  Jordan. 


"This  picture  is  copied  from  the  door  of  the  church 
at  Beneventum,  which  was  one  of  the  first  cities  in  [Italy 
where  the  gospel  was  introduced.  It  is  rudely  executed 
and  extremely  ancient."     (Taylor's  "Apostolic  Baptism," 

p.  I93-) 

We  have  given  four  pictures  of  our  Lord's  baptism 

from  the  second  to  the  fifth  century  (and  the   number 

could  be  easily  multiplied,  but  these  are  sufficient).      In 

every  one  the  baptism  is  performed   by  pouring,  while 

Jesus  is  represented  as  standing  in  the  water,  and  John  is 

standing  on  the  bank  and  pouring  the  water  on  His  head, 

illustrating  his  language:     "I  indeed   baptize  you  with 

water." 


228      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 


Here  is  another  picture  of  baptism  by  pouring ; 


Pl,ATB  V. 


"This  subject  is  an  ornament  on  the  door  of  the 
great  church  at  Pisa.  From  the  shape  of  the  characters, 
it  must  be  of  very  ancient  workmanship.  The  motto 
upon  it  is  Baptizat.  It  was  obviously  made  for  some 
Christian  estabUshment.  According  to  the  tradition  cur- 
rent among  the  Pisans,  it  was  brought  from  Jerusalem  by 
the  Crusaders,  about  the  commencement  of  the  twelfth 
century."     (Taylor's  "Apostolic  Baptism,"  p.  189.) 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      229 

The  following  is  the  picture  of  St.  Lawrence  baptizing 
Romanus.     On  this  picture  Mr.  Taylor  remarks  as  follows : 


VI.     LaurKntius  Baptizing  Romanus. 

"This  representation  is  in  the  Church  of  Lawrence 
extra  Muros,  at  Rome.  The  jugs  or  vases  are  remarkable ; 
being  the  same  as  in  other  pictures  of  far  remoter  an- 
tiquity. The  action  of  pouring  is  the  same,  and  by  an 
ecclesiastic. 

"In  the  other  baptisms  portrayed  in  Plates  VII. 
and  VIII.,  as  they  were  performed  in  an  inconvenient 
manner  and  place,  it  might  be  alleged,  that  the  pecuHar 
vase  was  adopted  because  there  was  not  a  better  vehicle 
at  hand;  but  this  objection  does  not  apply  to  this  case, 
because  Lawrence,  the  martyr-preacher,  is  depicted  as 
formally  administering  baptism  in  a  regular  baptistery  by 
pouring!"     (Taylor's  "Apostolic  Baptism,"  p.  207.) 


230      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

Here  is  another  picture  of  baptism  on  land  with  only 
a  small  vase  or  font  containing  the  water,  from  which  a 
pitcher  has  been  filled,  for  the  purpose  of  pouring  the 
water  on  the  head  of  the  candidate,  as  seen  in  the  picture. 
The  vase  or  font,  as  can  be  seen,  is  entirely  too  small  to 
immerse  in,  and  could  not  have  been  designed  for  any 
such  purpose.  This  is  a  case  of  baptism  by  simply 
pouring  the  water  on  the  head,  the  candidate  kneeUng 
on  the  ground.  On  this  picture  Mr.  Taylor  remarks  as 
below  the  picture: 


Plate  VII. 


"This  depicts,  i.  The  candidate  kneeling  down  and 
praying  near  the  bath  of  water;  and  a  hand  issues  from  a 
cloud  above  him,  to  denote  the  acquiescence  of  heaven  in 
his  petitions.  2.  Baptism  is  administered  by  pouring 
WATER  out  of  a  vase  on  persons  who  are  kneeling  on  the 
ground,  and  not  immersed  at  all.  Either,  then,  baptism 
was  administered  without  immersion,  by  pouring  only;  or 
those  persons  had  previously  been  immersed,  and  after- 
wards received  baptism,  as  a  distinct,  subsequent,  and 
separate  act.  Either  of  these  facts,  and  one  of  them 
must  be  the  truth,  cuts  up  the  Baptist  system  by  the 
roots."     (Taylor's  "Apostolic  Baptism,"  p.  203.) 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      231 

Mr.  Taylor  claims  that  where  the  persons  in  these 
pictures  are  represented  as  standing  or  kneeling  in  the 
water,  there  is  both  immersion  and  pouring ;  but  that  the 
pouring  constitutes  the  baptism.  But  there  is  no  im- 
mersion represented  in  any  of  these  pictures.  The 
standing  or  kneeling  in  the  water  is  not  an  immersion, 
and  is  no  part  of  the  baptism.  The  baptism  is  always 
represented  as  done  by  pouring,  whether  the  candidate 
is  standing  or  kneeling  in  a  river,  or  a  family  bath,  or  on 
the  ground. 


VIII.     Baptism  Outsider  of  a  Church. 

In  the  above  picture  there  is  no  baptismal  font  or 
vase  present,  except  the  vase  or  pitcher  from  which  the 
water  is  poured  on  the  head  of  the  boy. 

"The  boy  is  unclothed,  and  the  ordinance  is  admin- 
istered by  pouring.  This  representation  shows  that  the 
present  Abyssinian  mode  of  baptism  anciently  was  extant 
among  the  Greeks,  as  well  as  among  the  Romans.  This 
plate  is  at  Rome,  yet  it  was  the  work  of  Greek  artists,  in 
the  ninth  or  tenth  century."  (Taylor's  "Apostolic  Bap- 
tism," p.  205.) 


232      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

Here  is  the  picture  of  the  baptism  of  the  great  Con- 
stantine.  (Taylor's  "ApostoHc  Baptism,"  p.  209.)  He 
is  represented  as  kneeUng  in  a  family  bath,  and  Eusebius, 
Bishop  of  Nicomedia,  is  pouring  the  water  on  his  head. 


IX.    Baptism  ot  the  BmpEROR  Constantine. 

The  next  picture  is  taken  from  Taylor's  "Apostolic 
Baptism,"  p.  loi,  and  is  the  picture  Dr.  Robinson  gives  on 
page  140  of  his  "History  of  Baptism,"  where  he  claims 
that  the  lower  parts  of  the  bodies  of  the  baptized  were  im- 
mersed in  the  family  bath  "and  their  heads  were  im- 
mersed by  suPKRFusiON,"  and  where  he  saw  in  the  picture 
what  is  not  there:  "water  poured  plentifully  out  of  the 
pitcher,  on  the  upper  parts  of  their  bodies,  so  that  they 
were  wKT  ALL  OVER. ' '  And  in  this  way  the  artist ' '  thought, 
no  doubt,  that  he  should  give  a  just  notion  of  immersion 
(for  he  could  mean  no  other,  as  no  other  was  prac- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      233 


Ticed)  by  placing  the  lower  part  of  a  person  in  water, 
either  in  a  river  or  a  bath,  and  by  showing  another  person 
pouring  water  over  the  upper  part  out  of  the  water;  for 
what  could  he  mean,  except  that  to  baptize  was  To  WET 
ALiv  OVER,  to  cover  the  whole  man  with  water?"  This  is 
certainly  the  richest  attempt  to  make  a  picture  of  bap- 
tism by  POURING  represent  immersion  in  all  controversial 
literature.     It  is  a  stretch  of  the  imagination  unparalleled. 


X.     Baptism  of  a  Heathen  King  and  QuEEn. 

We  wish  to  call  the  reader's  attention  to  a  few  points 
in  regard  to  these  ancient  pictures  of  baptism,  especially 
the  baptism  of  our  Lord,  found  in  ancient  baptisteries, 
churches,  tombs,  etc.: 

I.     According  to  our  immersionist  friends,  every  one 

of  these  ancient  pictures  of  baptism  by  pouring  was  made 

by  immersionists  ;  for  they  hold  that  immersion  alone 

was  taught  and  practiced  in  the    ancient  Church  from 
—16— 


234      T^^  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

John  the  Baptist,  or,  rather,  John  the  Baptizer  (for  this 
is  his  proper  title,  as  the  word  Baptistes  means  "one  who 
baptizes,  a  baptizer")  for  fifteen  hundred  years. 

2.  According  to  our  immersionist  friends,  these 
were  the  strangest  immersionists  ever  heard  of.  They 
were  all  immersed  themselves,  and  believed  that  Jesus 
was  immersed  by  John  in  the  river  Jordan,  and  that  no 
other  mode  had  ever  been  practiced;  but,  when  they 
came  to  draw  pictures  of  the  baptism  of  our  Lord,  they 
invariably  represented  it  as  done  by  pouring,  while  Jesus 
stood  in  the  water,  and  John  stood  on  the  bank,  and  with 
his  right  hand  poured  water  on  the  head  of  our  Lord 
from  a  shell ! 

3.  Would  any  immersionist  now  living  picture  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord  as  these  ancient  immersionists  did, 
according  to  our  immersionist  friends? 

4.  A  man  always  pictures  a  thing  as  it  exists  in  his 
mind.  He  transfers  to  the  canvas  his  mental  conception, 
and  his  picture  gives  us  his  idea  of  the  thing.  When 
these  ancient  Christian  artists  pictured  our  Lord  as  being 
baptized  by  pouring,  they  gave  us  their  idea  of  how  He 
was  baptized. 

5.  Where  did  they  get  this  idea?  The  idea  was 
universal,  so  that  there  is  not  a  picture  of  the  baptism  of 
Christ  or  the  baptism  of  any  other  person  represented  by 
immersion  in  all  Christian  archaeology.  Again  we  ask, 
Where  did  they  get  this  idea  of  baptism  by  pouring  as 
the  universal  practice  of  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era?  Can  any  man  give  us  an  answer  to  this  question 
from  the  immersionists'  standpoint? 

6.  It  is  inconceivable  that  these  early  Christians 
should  have  invariably  pictured  the  baptism  of  our  Lord 
and  all  other  baptisms,  the  pictures  of  which  have  come 
down  to  us  from  the  remotest  Christian  antiquity,  in  a 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      235 

mode  which  was  never  practiced  and  which  they  had 
never  seen  or  heard  of.  Yet  this  is  the  very  thing  that 
our  immersionist  friends  ask  us  to  beUeve  did  actually 
occur ! 

7.  These  plain  facts  prove  to  us,  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  a  reasonable  doubt  or  quibble,  that  baptism  was 
practiced  in  the  early  Christian  centuries  by  pouring 
WATER  ON  THE  HEAD,  and  not  by  immersion,  and    the 

Ik 

early  Christians  did  believe  that  our  Lord  was  baptized 
in  this  manner  by  John  the  Baptizer.  No  other  con- 
clusion is  possible. 

8.  These  pictures  explain  many  passages  in  the 
writings  of  the  early  fathers,  when  they  speak  of  going  to 
the  water,  or  being  baptized  in  the  water.  They  show 
what  the  fathers  meant  by  such  expressions,  and  that 
they  did  not  mean  to  convey  the  idea  of  immersion,  but 
that  of  baptism  by  pouring  as  represented  in  the  pict- 
ures, while  the  baptized  were  standing  or  kneeling  in 
the  water. 

9.  Many  of  the  early  fathers  spoke  of  John  as  bap- 
tizing by  "pouring  on  of  water,"  and  of  Christ  being 
baptized  of  him  in  this  way. 

"Lactantius,  a.  D.  320,  furnishes  us  with  this 
Scriptural  sentiment:  'Sic  etiam  gentes  baptimo;  id  est^ 
purifici  sorts  purfusione  salver et.'  'So  also  He  [Christ] 
might  save  the  Gentiles  by  baptism ;  that  is,  by  the  pour- 
ing on  of  the  purifying  dew.'  ("Institutes,"  Book  4, 
Chapter  15.)  The  force  of  the  expression  may  be  thus 
stated,  that  he  represents  the  water  of  baptism  as  falling 
like  dew.  What  a  beautiful  figure  of  baptism!"  (Chap- 
man on  "Baptism,"  page  233.) 

"AuRELius  Prudentius,  who  wrote  A.  D.  390, 
speaking  of  John's  baptism,  says :  'Purjundit  fluvio ' ;  he 
poured  water  on  them  in  the  river. 


236      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Nola,  a  few  years  later,  says: 
*He  [John]  washes  away  the  sins  of  beUevers,  infusis 
lymphis,'  by  the  pouring  on  of  water."     {Ibid.,  pp.    234- 

235-) 

St.  Bernard,  A.  D.  1130,  speaking  of  the  baptism  of 
our  Lord  by  John,  says:  ''Infundit  aquam  capiti  Crea- 
toris  creatura,"  "The  creature  poured  water  on  the  head 
of  the  Creator."    (''Campbell  and  Rice  Debate,"  page  135.) 

The  passage  from  St.  Bernard  from  which  Dr.  Rice 
quotes  is  so  grand  we  here  give  it  to  the  reader  in  full, 
both  in  the  original  Latin  and  the  English  translation, 
as  furnished  in  Chapman  on  "Baptism,"  pages  138-139: 
''Exuitur  vestimentis  suis  Rex  gloricB,  splendor  luminis,  et 
figura  substantia  Dei.  Joannis  manibus  attrectatur  caro 
ilia  swmpta  de  virgine,  candidiorique  derivata  materia 
nudatnr  in  flumine,  felicis  Baptists  manibus  infundenda. 
Descendunt  angeli,  et  coelorum  agmina  tota  reverentia  cur- 
runt  ad  creatorem.  Baptizantem  et  baptizatum  numina 
dominantia  circumcingunt.  Infundid  aquam  capiti  Cre- 
atoris  creatura  nobilior,  et  Dei  verticem  mortalis  dextera 
contrectat  et  contingit.^'  (Divi  Bernardi  de  sancto  Joanne 
Baptista  Sermo.  p.  1688,  m;  Antwerp  edition,  1616.) 

Translation. — "The  King  of  glory,  the  brightness  of 
the  light,  and  form  of  the  substance  of  God,  is  divested  of 
his  garments.  The  flesh  which  was  taken  from  the  Virgin, 
and  derived  from  a  purer  source,  is  made  naked  in  the 
river,  to  be  affused  by  the  hands  of  the  happy  Baptist. 
The  angels  descend,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven  hasten  in 
reverence  to  their  Creator.  The  ruling  powers  surround 
the  baptizer  and  the  baptized.  A  creature  of  a  superior 
kind  POURS  water  on  the  head  of  the  Creator,  and  a 

MORTAL  right  HAND  TOUCHES  AND  MOISTENS  THE    HEAD 
OF  GOD." 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      237 

We  see  that  down  to  the  twelfth  century  the  fathers 
and  great  writers  of  the  Church  beUeved  that  John  bap- 
tized our  Lord  in  the  Jordan  by  pouring  the  water  on 
His  head.  This  was  the  prevaiHng  beUef  in  the  Church 
for  at  least  the  first  thousand  years  after  Christ,  as  ex- 
hibited in  all  the  pictures  of  baptism  that  have  come  down 
to  us  from  this  period,  and  as  given  in  the  writings  of 
such  men  as  Aurelius  Prudentius,  Paulinus,  Bishop  of 
Nola,  Lactantius,  and  St.  Bernard. 

2.  Now  let  us  examine  the  other  branch  of  the 
monumental  history  of  baptism.  The  baptismal  fonts 
found  in  the  ruins  of  the  most  ancient  churches  and  in  the 
Catacombs  of  Rome  are  like  the  baptismal  fonts  in  use  in 
modern  Pedo-Baptist  churches,  and  are  not  large  enough 
to  immerse  even  infants  in,  and  were  never  intended  for 
that  purpose;  but,  like  the  fonts  in  Pedo-Baptist  churches 
were  used  to  hold  the  baptismal  water,  into  which  the 
minister  dips  his  hand  for  the  purpose  of  sprinkling  the 
water  upon  the  person  who  is  baptized. 

I  take  the  following  from  Dr.  Schaff's  "Apostolic 
Church,"  p.  509: 

"He  says  Dr.  Robinson  further  adduces  (s.  c.  and  his 
his  'Biblical  Records  in  Palestine,'  II.  182,  iii.  78),  that 
the  baptismal  fonts  found  among  the  ruins  of  the  oldest 
Greek  churches  in  Palestine,  as  at  Tekoa  and  Cophna, 
are  not  large  enough  for  the  immersion  of  adults,  and 
were  evidently  not  intended  for  that  purpose." 

Mr.  WiTHROW,  in  his  "Catacombs  of  Rome,"  says: 

"The  testimony  of  the  Catacombs  respecting  the 
mode  of  baptism,  as  far  as  it  extends,  is  strongly  in  favor 
of  aspersion  or  affusion.  All  their  pictured  representa- 
tions of  the  rite  indicate  this  mode,  for  which  alone  the 
early  fonts  seem  adapted ;  nor  is  THERE  any  early  art 
EVIDENCE  OF  baptismal  IMMERSION.     It  sccms  incredible, 


238      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

if  the  latter  were  the  original  and  exclusive  mode,  of 
apostolic  and  even  divine  authority,  that  it  should  have 
left  no  trace  in  the  earliest  and  most  unconscious  art 
records,  and  have  been  supplanted  therein  by  a  new, 
unscriptural,  and  unhistoric  method.  It  is  apparent,  in- 
deed, from  the  writings  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  century, 
that  many  corrupt  and  unwarranted  usages  were  intro- 
duced in  connection  with  this  Christian  ordinance  that 
greatly  marred  its  beauty  and  simplicity.  It  is  unques- 
tionable that  at  that  time  baptism  by  immersion  was 
practiced  with  many  superstitious  and  unseemly  rites. 
That  both  men  and  women  were  divested  of  their  clothing, 
to  represent  the  putting  off  the  body  of  sin;  which,  not- 
withstanding the  greatest  efforts  to  avoid  it,  inevitably 
produced  scandal.  They  then  received  trine  immersion, 
to  imitate,  says  Gregory  Nyssen,  the  three-days  burial  of 
Christ ;  or,  according  to  others,  as  a  symbol  of  the  Trinity. 
The  rite  was  accompanied  by  exorcism,  insufflation, 
unction,  and  confirmation,  the  gift  of  milk  and  hon- 
ey, the  administration  of  the  eucharist,  the  clothing  in 
white  garments,  and  carrying  of  lighted  tapers,  to  .all 
which  a  mystical  meaning  was  attached. 

**But  in  the  evidence  of  the  Catacombs,  which  are 
the  testimony  of  an  earlier  and  purer  period,  there  is  no 
indication  of  this  mode  of  baptism,  nor  of  those  dramatic 
accompaniments.  The  marble  font  represented  in  the 
accompanying  engraving,  now  in  the  crypt  of  St.  Prisca 
within  the  Walls,  is  said  to  have  come  from  the  Catacombs, 
and  to  have  been  used  for  baptismal  purposes  by  St. 
Peter  himself;  in  corroboration  of  which  it  bears  the 
somewhat  apocryphal  inscription,  *sci.  PET.  baptism  v.' 
(Sic.)  The  tradition  at  least  attests  its  extreme  an- 
tiquity; and  its  basin  is  quite  too  small  for  even  infant 
immersion.     Other   fonts   have   been   found   in    several 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christiari  Baptism.      239 

other  subterranean  chapels,  among  which  is  one  in  the 
Catacomb  Pontianus  hewn  out  of  the  sohd  tufa  and  fed 
by  a  Hving  stream." 

We  gave  a  description  of  this,  accompanying  the 
picture  taken  from  the  wall  of  the  chapel  just  above  the 
baptismal  font. 

The  monumental  argument,  drawn  from  the  monu- 
ments of  the  early  Church,  in  its  pictures  of  baptism  and 
its  baptismal  fonts  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  the 
remotest  Christian  antiquity,  is  unanswerable.  Either 
branch  is  convincing,  but  taken  together  the  argument 
is  overwhelming  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism  practiced  in 
the  earliest  Christian  centuries. 

We  will  now  take  up  in  order  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers  and  early  Christian  writers  in  regard  to  the  mode 
of  baptism : 

I.  ClKment  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  190,  gives  an  ac- 
count of  a  backslider,  who  had  become  the  captain  of  a 
band  of  robbers,  who  was  reclaimed  by  the  Apostle  John, 
who  visited  the  robber  camp  for  that  purpose,  and  was 
arrested  and  brought  before  the  captain,  who,  seeing  and 
knowing  him,  fled;  but  John  followed  after  him,  crying: 
"Why,  my  son,  dost  thou  flee  from  me,  thy  father,  un- 
armed and  old?  Son,  pity  me.  Fear  not,  thou  hast  still 
hope  of  life.  I  will  give  account  to  Christ  for  thee.  If 
need  be,  I  will  willingly  endure  thy  death,  as  the  Lord  did 
death  for  us.  For  thee  I  will  surrender  my  life.  Stand, 
believe,  Christ  hath  sent  me." 

"And  he,  when  he  heard,  first,  stood,  then  looking 
down,  threw  down  his  arms,  then  trembled  and  wept 
bitterly.  And  as  the  old  man  approached  he  embraced 
him,  speaking  for  himself  with  lamentations  as  he  could, 
and  BAPTIZED  A  SECOND  TIME  WITH    TEARS,  Concealing 


240      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

only  his  right  hand."  (Ante-Nicine  Library,  Vol.  II., 
page  603.) 

Here  is  a  baptism,  the  mode  of  which  cannot  be  misun- 
derstood ;  it  is  by  the  tears  running  down  the  penitentback- 
slider's  face,  as  did  the  water  in  his  first  baptism !  This 
is  a  baptism  during  the  life  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  the 
narrative  was  handed  down  to  the  time  of  Clement,  and 
ninety  years  after  it  occurred  it  was  written  out  by 
Clement,  who,  in  his  earlier  years,  was  a  companion  of 
apostolic  men. 

2.  Justin  Martyr  comes  next  in  order  among  the 
authentic  witnesses  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism  practiced 
in  the  early  Church.  He  wrote  his  first  "Apology"  to 
the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius  A.  D.  140.  Speaking  on  the 
subject  of  baptism,  in  Chapter  LXI.,  he  says: 

"I  will  also  relate  the  manner  in  which  we  dedicated 
ourselves  to  God  when  we  had  been  made  new  through 
Christ ;  lest,  if  we  omit  this,  we  may  seem  to  be  unfair  in 
the  explanation  we  are  writing.  As  many  as  are  per- 
suaded and  believe  that  which  we  teach  and  say  is  true, 
and  undertake  to  be  able  to  live  accordingly,  are  in- 
structed to  pray  and  to  entreat  God  with  fasting,  for  the 
remission  of  their  sins  that  are  past,  we  praying  and 
fasting  with  them.  Then  they  are  brought  by  us  where 
there  is  water,  and  are  regenerated  in  the  same  manner 
in  which  we  were  ourselves  regenerated.  For,  in  the 
name  of  God  the  Father  and  Lord  of  the  universe,  and  of 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they 
then  receive  the  washing  with  watejr." 

In  Chapter  LXI  I.  he  continues : 

"And  the  devils,  indeed,  having  heard  this  washing 
published  by  the  prophet,  instigated  those  who  enter 
their  temples,  and  are  about  to  approach  them  with   li- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      241 

bations  and  burnt  offerings,  also  To  sprinkle  them- 
selves."    (Ante-Nicine  Library,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  183-184.) 

In  fragments  from  the  lost  writings  of  Justin  he  says : 

"By  the  two  birds  Christ  is  denoted,  both  dead  as 
man,  but  living  as  God.  He  is  likened  to  a  bird,  because 
He  is  understood  and  declared  to  be  from  above,  and  from 
heaven.  And  the  living  bird,  having  been  dipped  in  the 
blood  of  the  dead  one,  was  afterward  let  go.  For  the 
living  and  divine  Word  was  in  the  crucified  and  dead 
temple  (of  the  body),  as  being  a  partaker  of  the  passion, 
and  yet  impassable  as  God. 

"By  that  which  took  place  in  the  running  water,  in 
which  the  wood  and  hyssop  and  the  scarlet  were  dipped, 
is  set  forth  the  bloody  passion  of  Christ  on  the  cross  for 
the  salvation  of  those  who  are  sprinkled  with  the  Spirit, 
and  the  water,  and  the  blood.  Wherefore  the  material 
for  purification  was  not  provided  chiefly  with  reference 
to  leprosy,  but  with  regard  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  that 
both  leprosy  might  be  understood  to  be  an  emblem  of  sin, 
and  the  things  that  were  sacrificed  an  emblem  of  Him  who 
was  to  be  sacrificed  for  sins."     {Ibid.,  p.  301.) 

On  these  extracts  from  Justin  Martyr  I  remark : 

1 .  His  remark, '  'Then  they  are  brought  by  us  where 
there  is  water,"  finds  its  explanation  in  the  pictures 
of  baptism,  where  it  is  seen  that  Christ  is  always  repre- 
sented as  standing  in  the  water,  while  John  is  pouring 
the  water  on  His  head.  The  early  Christians,  after  the 
first  century,  always  baptized  in  water,  if  they  could  get 
it,  but  they  always  baptized  by  affusion,  as  the  pictures 
represent,  and  as  the  "Teachings  of  the  Twelve  Apostles" 
directs,  as  we  shall  see. 

2.  Justin  tells  us  baptism  is  a  "washing  with 
WATER,"  not  an  immersion  in  water.  Mr.  Braden,  in  his 
debate  with  me  in  1868,  said  that  Justin  Martyr,  in  the 


242       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

passage  quoted  from  his  ''Apology,"  said  they  were  im- 
mersed.    Here  is  the  passage  in  the  "Debate": 

"Justin  Martyr:  'They  [the  candidates]  are  led  by 
us  where  there  is  water,  and  are  born  again  in  that  kind 
of  new  birth  in  which  we  ourselves  were  born  again. 
For  upon  the  name  of  God  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all, 
and  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
immersion  in  water  is  performed.* 

"Mr.  Hughey:  'Does  not  the  gentleman  know  that 
haptidzo  does  not  occur  in  that  passage?' 

"Mr.  Braden:  'He  is  describing  a  baptism,  and  he 
calls  it  an  immersion.  That  is  the  point  I  am  making 
now.  He  says  it  is  a  katadusis,  the  very  word  the  gen- 
tleman says  means  immersion.'  "  ("Braden  and  Hughey 
Debate,"  p.  142.) 

Justin  Martyr  does  not  use  katadusis  in  that  pas- 
sage, nor  any  other  word  that  means  immersion.  He 
uses  louo,  the  very  word  which  is  so  often  used,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  express  the  various  purifications  of  the  law, 
which  we  have  seen  are  almost  invariably  performed  by 
simple  sprinkling!  This  is  but  a  specimen  of  Mr. 
Braden' s  accuracy  in  his  statements. 

3.  He  tells  us  this  "washing"  was  spoken  of  or 
foretold  by  the  prophet.  Where  do  we  find  immersion 
foretold  by  any  prophet?  We  have  "washing"  spoken  of 
in  Isaiah  i.  16;  and  "sprinkling"  in  Isaiah  lii.  15,  where 
it  is  expressly  said  of  the  Lord,  "So  shall  He  sprinkle 
many  nations" ;  and  in  Bzekiel  xxxvi.  25,  where  it  is  said, 
"Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  be  clean."  But  nowhere  in  all  the  prophecies  is 
there  a  prophecy  of  immersion.  This  is  an  important 
point. 

4.  This  "washing"  was  done  by  sprinkling,  for 
Justin  says:     "And  the  devils,  indeed,  having  heard  this 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of^  Christian  Baptism.      243 

washing  published  by  the  prophet,  instigated  those  who 
enter  their  temples,  and  are' about  to  approach  them  with 
libations  and  burnt  offerings,  also  to  sprinkle  them- 
selves." The  word  "also"  shows  conclusively  that  the 
"washing"  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  was  "also"  by 
SPRINKLING.  If  it  had  not  been,  the  word  "also,"  which 
means  "in  like  manner,"  would  not  have  been  used. 

5.  That  this  "washing"  was  done  by  sprinkling 
is  conclusively  shown  by  Justin  calling  the  baptized 
"sprinkled  with  water." 

6.  Justin  was  born  in  Flavia  Neapolis,  a  city  of 
Samaria,  the  modern  Nablouse.  The  date  of  his  birth  is 
uncertain,  but  it  occurred  between  A.  D.  100  and  A.  D. 
115.  He  was  born,  at  farthest,  not  over  fifteen  years 
after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  probably  not 
over  five  years ;  and  consequently  he  was  raised  with  and 
lived  among  apostolic  men,  at  least  the  first  half  of  his 
life.  He  tells  us  in  Chapter  XV.:  "And  many,  both  of 
men  and  women,  who  have  been  Christ's  disciples  from 
childhood,  remain  pure  at  the  age  of  sixty  or  seventy 
years ;  and  I  could  boast  that  I  could  produce  such  from 
every  race  of  men."     (Ibid.,  p.  167.) 

This  proves  that  these  many  apostolic  men  and 
women  who  lived  at  that  time,  A.  D.  140,  were  twenty  or 
thirty  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  Apostle 
John.  These  apostolic  men  and  women  certainly  knew 
what  was  the  teaching  and  practice  of  the  apostles  and 
the  apostolic  Church;  and  Justin  had  the  most  ample 
means  of  knowing  what  that  teaching  and  practice  was 
in  regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  His  testimony  is 
therefore  of  the  highest  authority,  and  must  be  accepted 
as  conclusive,  as  it  harmonizes  exactly  with  that  of  the 
most  ancient  pictures  of  baptism  and  the  earliest   bap- 


244      Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

tismal  fonts  that  have  been  found  among  the  ruins  of  the 
most  ancient  churches  and  in  the  Catacombs. 

3.  Our  next  witness  is  '  'The  Teachings  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles."  This  document  bears  internal  evidence  of 
having  been  written  before  the  controversies  arose  which 
troubled  the  Church  during  the  third  and  following 
centuries.  It  is  referred  to  by  Busebius  and  Athanasius, 
which  shows  that  it  was  in  existence  and  known  by  the 
great  writers  who  lived  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth 
century.  There  is  a  passage  in  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
supposed  to  be  a  quotation  from  it,  which  shows  that 
it  was  in  existence  before  the  close  of  the  second  cent- 
ury. It  is  generally  supposed  to  date  during  the  first 
half  of  the  second  century,  and  thus  to  be  contem- 
porary with  Justin  Martyr.      In  Chapter  VIII.  we  read: 

"And  touching  baptism,  thus  baptize:  having  first 
declared  all  these  things,  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  living 
water.  But  if  thou  have  not  living  water,  baptize  in 
other  water;  and  if  thou  canst  not  in  cold,  then  in  warm. 
But  if  thou  have  neither,  pour  on  The  head  water 
thrice  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit. 
Before  baptism  let  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized  fast, 
and  any  others  who  can,  but  thou  shalt  bid  the  baptized 
to  fast  one  or  two  days  before." 

Now  turn  to  the  pictures  of  baptism,  which  were 
(one  of  them  at  least,  that  of  the  picture  of  the  baptism 
of  Christ  in  the  Catacomb  Ponzianus)  made  about  the 
time  "The  Teachings  of  the  Twelve  Apostles"  was 
written,  and  you  will  see  what  is  meant  by  "baptizing  in 
living  water."  Some  of  the  other  pictures,  which  repre- 
sent the  baptized  kneeling  in  a  family  bath,  explain  what 
is  meant  by  "baptizing  in  other  water,  either  cold  or 
warm";  and  others,  the  baptism  on  dry  land,  standing 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      245 

or  kneeling.  But  the  baptism  is  always  done  by 
POURING,  whether  the  baptized  is  standing  in  the  river  in 
Uving  water,  or  kneeHng  in  a  bath-tub  in  other  water, 
either  cold  or  warm,  or  kneeling  on  the  ground.  No 
immersionist  could  ever  give  such  directions  concerning 
the  manner  of  baptizing,  and  the  fact  that  the  writer  of 
"The  Teachings  of  the  Twelve  Apostles"  did  give  such 
directions  concerning  baptism  proves  that  he  was  not  an 
immersionist. 

If  the  baptism  here  "in  living  water,  or  other" 
means  immersion,  as  our  immersionist  friends  contend, 
then  immersion  is  only  one  mode  of  baptism,  and  is  of 
no  more  value  than  baptism  by  pouring.  There  is  no 
running  around  to  find  water  to  baptize  in;  if  it  is  not 
convenient,  the  baptism  proceeds  without  it.  Take 
whatever  view  of  this  passage  we  may,  it  uproots  the 
whole  immersionist  theory,  and  proves  that  the  immer- 
sionists'  contention  as  to  the  meaning  of  baptidzo  is 
without  foundation.  The  discovery  of  "The  Teachings 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles"  was  a  fatal  blow  to  immersion. 

4.  Our  fourth  witness  is  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
written  by  someone,  certainly  not  by  the  companion  of 
Paul,  and  not  earlier  than  the  first  quarter  and  perhaps 
the  latter  half  of  the  second  century.  There  are  three 
passages  in  this  epistle  which  refer  to  baptism.  Two  of 
them,  taken  by  themselves,  might  seem  to  favor  immer- 
sion; but  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  pictorial 
representations  in  that  early  age  and  the  other  passage, 
they  can  give  no  support  to  the  idea  of  immersion.  Yet 
Mr.  Campbell  quotes  these  passages  as  sustaining  immer- 
sion, never  referring  to  the  other,  where  it  is  manifest 
he  refers  to  baptism  by  sprinkling,  nor  to  the  fact  that 
the  pictorial  representations  of  baptism  generally  rep- 
resent it  as  being  performed  in  the  water,  BUT  always  by 


246      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

POURING.  This  explains  the  supposed  references  to  im- 
mersion and  harmonizes  them  with  the  reference  to 
sprinkling.  We  will  now  give  the  whole  testimony  of 
this  epistle  on  the  subject.  The  passages  which  Mr. 
Campbell  quotes  are  the  following: 

"Blessed  are  they  who,  placing  their  trust  in  the 
cross,  have  gone  down  into  the  water."  And,  "This 
meaneth  that  we  indeed  descend  into  the  water  full  of 
sins  and  defilement,  but  we  come  up  having  fruit  in  our 
hearts,  having  the  fear  [of  God]  and  trust  in  Jesus  in  our 
spirit."  (Ante-Nicine  Library,  Chapter  XI.,  Volume  I., 
p.  144.) 

In  Chapter  VIII.  we  have  the  other  passage,  which 
clearly  teaches  that  baptism  was  performed  by  sprinkling. 
He  is  speaking  of  the  heifer  being  a  type  of  Christ,  and 
says: 

"Now  what  do  you  suppose  this  to  be  a  type  of,  that 
a  command  was  given  to  Israel,  that  men  of  the  greatest 
wickedness  should  offer  a  heifer,  and  slay  and  burn  it, 
and  then  that  boys  should  take  the  ashes,  and  put  them 
into  a  vessel,  and  bind  round  a  stick  purple  wool  along 
with  hyssop,  and  that  thus  the  boys  should  sprinkle  the 
people  one  by  one  in  order  that  they  might  be  purified 
from  their  sins.  Consider  how  he  speaks  to  you  with  sim- 
plicity. The  calf  is  Jesus;  the  sinful  men  offering  it  are 
those  who  led  Him  to  the  slaughter.  But  now  the  men 
are  no  longer  guilty,  are  no  longer  regarded  as  sinners, 
and  the  boys  that  sprinkle  are  those  that  have  pro- 
claimed to  us  the  remission  of  sins  and  purification  of 
heart."     (Ibid.,  p.  142.) 

In  these  passages  the  writer  teaches  that  remission 
of  sins  and  purity  of  heart  are  obtained  in  the  water,  and 
they  are  received  by  sprinkling !  Now  look  at  the  ancient 
pictures  of  baptism,  and  see  the  perfect  agreement  be- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      247 

tween  them  and  these  passages  in  this  epistle.  Yet  Mr. 
Campbell  and  writers  on  the  side  of  immersion  in  general 
never  refer  to  this  passage,  nor  to  the  harmony  of  all 
these  passages  taken  together  with  the  early  pictures  of 
baptism.  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  must  be  given  up  as 
a  witness  for  immersion. 

5.  The  "Similitudes"  of  Hermas,  placed  at  about 
A.  D.  160.  In  Similitude  Ninth  the  building  of  the 
Church  is  represented  by  the  building  of  a  tower  of  stones. 
At  first  the  stones  were  brought  up  from  the  deep,  which 
were  the  saints  which  died  before  Christ.  They  were 
righteous,  but  needed  the  seal,  evidently  baptism.  The 
apostles  descended  into  the  deep  and  gave  them  the 
"seal."  This  could  not  have  been  immersion,  for  they 
were  already  immersed  in  the  "deep."  How  the  "seal" 
was  given  to  them  we  do  not  know ;  we  do  know  the  figure 
used  will  not  permit  immersion,  for  they  had  descended 
into  the  deep  long  before  the  apostles  did.  They  went 
down  dead,  but  came  up  alive.  But  they  went  down, 
many  of  them,  centuries  before  they  came  up.  After- 
ward the  apostles  went  down  alone,  and  gave  them  the 
"seal."  "These,"  he  says,  "went  down  alive  and  came 
up  alive,"  but  the  others,  the  Old  Testament  saints, 
"went  down  dead,  but  came  up  alive,"  having  received 
the  "seal"  in  the  under  world.  Clearly,  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion, or  the  representation  of  baptism  by  immersion, 
is  out  of  the  question. 

After  the  stones  ceased  to  ascend  out  of  the  deep, 
then  the  builders  went  to  the  mountains  and  quarried 
stones  to  finish  the  tower;  that  is,  got  sinners  converted, 
and  builded  them  into  the  Church.  "Then  these  virgins 
[the  builders]  took  besoms  and  cleansed  all  the  place 
around,  and  took  away  all  the  rubbish  and  threw  on 
water;  which  being  done,  the  place  became  delightful 


248      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

and  the  tower  became  beauteous."     ("Apostolic  Fath- 
ers," Archbishop  Wake's  Translation,  p.  309.) 

The  tower  was  "cleansed  by  throwing  on  water" — 
that  is,  BY  SPRINKLING.  The  stones  which  were  brought 
from  the  mountains  were  cleansed  by  water  being  "thrown 
on";  that  is,  the  sinners  converted  after  Christ  came, 
and  brought  into  the  Church,  were  baptized  by  sprink- 
ling— the  "seal"  was  given  to  them  in  this  manner. 
Hermas,  when  understood  and  taken  together,  can  furnish 
no  support  for  immersion,  but  expressly  teaches  baptism 

by  SPRINKLING. 

These  fanciful  writers,  whoever  they  may  have  been, 
must  be  studied  as  a  whole  in  order  to  understand  them. 
An  isolated  passage  taken  from  them  here  and  there  can 
prove  nothing,  nor  can  they  give  a  true  representation  of 
what  these  apocryphal  writers  really  teach. 

6.  iRENiBus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  was  born  A.  D.  120 
and  died  A.  D.  202.  Irengeus  was  a  disciple  or  pupil  of 
Polycarp,  who  was  a  pupil  of  St.  John.  He  was  but 
one  step  removed  from  the  apostle.  In  his  Third  Book 
against  Heresies,  Chapter  XVI.,  speaking  of  the  unity  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  he  says : 

"For  as  a  compacted  lump  of  dough  cannot  be  formed 
of  dry  wheat  without  fluid  matter,  nor  can  a  loaf  possess 
unity,  so,  in  like  manner,  neither  could  we,  being  many, 
be  made  one  in  Christ  Jesus  without  the  water  from 
heaven.  And  as  dry  earth  does  not  bring  forth  unless  it 
receive  moisture,  in  like  manner  we  also,  being  originally 
a  dry  tree,  could  never  have  brought  forth  fruit  unto  life 
without  the  voluntary  rain  From  above.  For  our  bod- 
ies have  received  unity  among  themselves  by  means  of 
that  laver  which  leads  to  incorruption ;  but  our  souls,  by 
means  of  the  Spirit."  (Ante-Nicine  Library,  Vol.  I.,  pp. 
444-445.) 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      249 

Irenaeus  calls  baptism  "the  voluntary  rain  from 
above."  Unquestionably  baptism  was  administered  in 
his  day  by  affusion.  This  is  the  more  apparent  because 
he  couples  it  with  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
is  always  performed  by  pouring,  never  by  immersion. 
He  further  states :  "The  Lord,  receiving  this  as  a  gift  from 
His  Father,  does  Himself  also  confer  it  upon  those  who 
are   partakers  of   Himself,   sending  The   Holy  Spirit 

UPON  ALL  THE  EARTH." 

7.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  whom  Dr.  Conant  says 
flourished  during  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century 
and  the  first  quarter  of  the  third — that  is,  from  A.  D.  175 
to  A.  D.  225,  says: 

"That  may  be  an  image  or  picture  of  baptism  which 
was  handed  down  from  Moses  to  the  poets,  thus:  Pe- 
nelope, having  washed,  and  having  on  clean  garments 
sprinkled  (hudranamene) ,  or  having  sprinkled  herself,  goes 
to  prayer ;  and  Telemachus,  having  washed  his  hands  at 
the  hoary  sea,  prayed  to  Athena.  This  was  a  custom 
of  the  Jews,  in  this  manner  also,  many  times  to  bap- 
tize themselves  upon  a  couch." 

Here  is  the  passage  from  Clement  in  Greek : 

*'i7  ctx^^  T'ov  /8a7rTto"/LUXTOs  €Lrj  av  Kat  rf  ck  MtuvVcws  rrapa- 
8e8ofi€vrj  Tots  TTOiryrats  wSe  ttoos: 

**  'H  o'  v8pr]vafX€V€  KaOapa  \poi  tlpxir  IKoxxra  (OdySS.  iv. 
759).      rj  rEryveAoTTT;  lirl  rrjv  evyrjv  tp^erai — Tr)\€fjia)(0^  Be. 

"Xelpas  VL<f>dfJi€vo^  TroXtTys  dXos  evxer' 'A^tJvt;  (OdySS.  ii. 
261). 

"*E^OS    TOVTO    'lovStWV    ft)S    Kat    TO    TToAXaKtS    €7rt   KOLTTJ  fiaTT- 

TiieaOaL. ' ' 

Was  it  a  custom  of  the  Jews  to  baptize  themselves 
"in  the  same  manner  also"  as  Telemachus  baptized  him- 
self, by  washing  his  hands,  while  reclining  at  their  meals 

"upon  a  couch"?    We  know  that  this  was  a  prevailing 
—17— 


250      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

custom  among  the  Jews.  Turn  again  to  the  passage  in 
Sozomen's  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  page  52,  where  he 
gives  the  account  of  the  Empress  Helena,  the  mother  of 
the  great  Constantine,  performing  this  service  for  the 
sacred  virgins.  He  says:  "During  her  residence  in  Je- 
rusalem, it  is  related  that  she  assembled  the  sacred  virgins 
at  a  feast,  ministered  to  them  at  supper,  presented  them 
with  food,  POURED  WATER  ON  THEIR  HANDS,  and  per- 
formed other  similar  services  customary  on  such  oc- 
casions." Mark  that  Sozomen  says:  "This  was  cus- 
tomary on  such  occasions."  Socrates  and  Theodoret 
both  give  the  same  circumstance  in  their  ecclesiastical 
histories. 

I  have  looked  carefully  through  Conant's  "Bap- 
tizein"  three  times,  and  cannot  find  this  passage  from 
Clement  in  it.  I  find  other  passages  from  Clement,  but 
not  this.  Did  he  avoid  it  on  purpose?  It  looks  very 
much  like  it;  for  this  passage  is  quoted  more  frequently 
by  the  opponents  of  immersion,  than  any  other  passage 
from  Clement;  yet  Dr.  Conant,  knowing  this,  does  not 
refer  to  it  at  all ! 

Our  immersionist  friends  claim  that  ''epi  koite  bap- 
tizesthai"  does  not  mean  "baptized  upon  a  couch,"  but 
that  it  means  "purification  from  defilement  contracted 
from  a  couch";  and  that  such  baptisms  or  purifications 
were  always  performed  by  immersion.  For  a  full  dis- 
cussion of  this  position,  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  Ap- 
pendix A,  "Braden  and  Hughey  Debate,"  pp.  656-669, 
where  he  will  see  the  utter  fallacy  of  this  position,  and  all 
the  arguments  in  its  support  completely  answered  and 
the  absurdity  of  the  position  fully  exposed.  It  is  only 
necessary  for  me  to  remark  here : 

I.  Defilement  might  be  contracted  from  a  couch 
or  bed,  under  the  law,  from  various  causes.  (See  Leviti- 
cus XV.) 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      251 

2.  Whenever  purification  or  baptism  is  spoken  of  by 
Greek  writers,  from  defilement  contracted  from  a  couch 
or  bed,  or  dead  body,  or  from  wrath,  etc.,  the  preposition 
ape,  not  epi,  is  used  with  the  noun  indicating  the  source 
of  defilement.  The  learned  Dr.  DaIvK,  in  his  "Judaic 
Baptism,"  says: 

''The  use  of  airo  [apo]  with  the  noun  [indicating  the 
source  of  defilement  from  which  cleansing  has  been  ef- 
fected is  established  use;  thus  we  have  baptized  from 
[airo],  a  dead  body. 

"Also  Justin  Martyr  says:  'Baptize  the  soul  from 
wrath  [ape  orges],  and  from  [apo'\  covetousness,  and  from 
\apo]  envy,  and  from  [apo'\  hatred,'  etc. 

"The  use  of  ctti  [ept\  under  such  circumstances  is 
unheard  of.  If  then  (rv^vyiav  [suzugian]  might  be  omit- 
ted, ttTTo  [apo]  would,  in  its  absence,  be  most  impera- 
tively required  to  be  retained,  in  a  reference  to  the  bap- 
tism contemplated.  Its  absence  alone  is  disproof  of 
the  assumed  reference."  ("Judaic  Baptism,"  pp.  182 
and  278.) 

Only  a  few  pages  before  this  passage,  Clement  him- 
self, in  speaking  of  "baptism  from  the  couch,"  on  ac- 
count of  the  very  defilement  our  immersionist  friends 
contend  he  is  speaking  of  in  this  passage,  uses  both  apo 
and  suzugian,  and  koites  and  haptizesthai.  If  he  had  said 
SiMPiyY,  "And  now  Divine  Providence  does  not  indeed 
enjoin  him  to  baptize  himself  apo  koites'*  ("from  the 
couch"),  we  would  not  have  known  what  defilement  he 
was  speaking  of,  contracted  from  the  couch.  But  when 
he  adds  ''kata  suzugian^'  he  specifies  the  defilement,  and 
it  is  the  very  defilement  our  immersionist  friends  contend 
he  refers  to  in  the  passage  under  consideration.  Here  is 
the  passage  where  he  is  speaking  of  the  defilement  our 
opponents  contend  he  is  speaking  of  in  this  passage : 

\ 


252      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"  ovBe  fikv  Tov  OLTTO  Trjs  Kara  a'v^vA6av  koltt)^  o/xot'<os  ws 
TraX^t,  /SaTTTliea-dat  kol  vvv  TrpodTaa-cru  rj  Oeia  Stot  Kvpiov  Trpovoia." 

Properly  translated,  it  reads:  "And  now  Divine 
Providence  does  not  indeed  enjoin  him  to  baptize  himself 
from  [apo]  the  couch  on  account  of  suzugian,  as  in  former 
times."  Here  we  see  koites  is  used  in  its  proper  sense  of 
bed  or  couch,  while  kata  suzugian  specifies  the  defilement 
which  was  contracted  upon  the  couch  or  bed  from  which 
he  was  required  to  baptize  himself.  Thus  Clement  him- 
self settles  the  controversy  as  to  the  meaning  of  this 
passage  by  the  language  he  uses  in  the  other  passage, 
where  he  is  speaking  of  baptism  from  the  very  defilement 
our  immersionist  friends  contend  he  is  speaking  of  here. 
It  cannot  be  possible  that  he  is  speaking  of  baptism  from 
the  same  defilement  in  both  of  these  passages. 

3.  The  baptism  of  which  Clement  speaks  "upon  a 
couch"  was  "also,"  "in  like  manner,"  as  the  baptism  of 
Telemachus  "washing  his  hands."  Hence  it  could  not 
have  been  by  immersion,  but  must  have  been  by  "wash- 
ing the  hands."  Immersion  would  not  have  been  *'also," 
"in  like  manner." 

4.  Mr.  Braden,  in  his  appendix  to  our  "Debate," 
says:  "Koite  never  means  a  reclining  or  dining  couch." 
I  proved  that  this  was  not  true.  Schrevelius'  first  defini- 
tion of  koite  is:  "Cubile  lectus."  Leveret  gives  among 
the  definitions  of  lectus:  "A  sofa  or  couch  to  recline  on 
at  table.  This  couch  was  provided  with  cushions,  and 
contained  generally  three  persons."  But  we  not  only 
have  the  testimony  of  these  great  masters  in  classic  usage 
as  to  its  signifying  a  dining  couch,  for  Xenophon,  in  his 
"Memorabilia"  authorizes  this  usage.  "Speaking  of  the 
marks  of  honor  due  from  the  younger  to  the  elder,  he 
mentions  rising  up  in  their  presence,  honoring  them  with 
a  soft  couch,  'koite  malake,'  and  giving  them|the  prece- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      253 

dence  in  speech.  In  this  case  the  couch  is  evidently  not 
a  bed  of  repose  at  night,  but  one  to  recHne  on  in  a  circle 
engaged  in  conversation  and  participating  in  the  enjoy- 
ments of  social  life.  In  short,  it  was,  as  Strizius  remarks 
in  his  learned  and  critical  'Lexicon  Xenophonteum,' 
'lectus  quietus  etconvivii,*  a  couch  on  which  to  repose  and 
to  feast.  Morell  also,  in  his  'Lexicon  Prosodaicum,'  gives 
KXivrj  [kline]  and  kolty}  [koite]  as  synonymous."  (Beecher 
on  "Baptism,"  note  4,  p.  337.) 

5.  The  literal  meaning  of  koite  is  bed  or  couch,  and 
this  is  its  general  meaning  in  the  Septuagint.  It  is  so  used 
six  times  in  Leviticus  xv.  In  verses  4,  5,  23,  24,  and 
twice  in  26.  It  is  so  used  six  times  in  Daniel,  and  I  have 
examined  its  use  in  many  other  passages,  and  I  find  this 
is  its  general  use. 

6.  Its  use  with  epi  is  always  upon  the  bed  or  couch. 
Canticles  iii.  i :  "  By  night  on  my  bed  [epi  koiteen]  I 
sought  him  whom  my  soul  loveth."  Job  xxxiii.  15 :  "In 
slumbering  upon  the  bed"  (epi  koites).  Psalm  iv.  4: 
"Commune  with  your  own  heart  upon  your  bed"  (epi 
tais  koitis).  First  Kings  i.  47:  "And  the  king  bowed 
himself  upon  the  bed"  {epiten  koiten).  It  is  so  used  in 
many  other  places,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  show  the 
usage  and  to  show  that  epi  koite  means  "upon  the  couch" 
in  Clement,  and  nothing  else. 

7.  But  the  baptism  our  immersionist  friends  con- 
tend Clement  is  here  speaking  of  was  not  by  immer- 
sion. In  the  Septuagint  it  is  koI  Xova-ovraL  vSan  (kai 
lousontai  hudati),  "and  shall  wash  with  water."  The 
simple  dative.  The  water  was  pourKd  upon  the  person, 
and  not  the  person  plunged  into  the  water.  We  have 
before  shown  that  the  Jews  never  immersed  in  a  bath- 
tub, but  only  in  running  water,  or  in  the  sea.  But  this 
baptism  took  place  in  the  house,  and  consequently  both 


254      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

the  language  used  and  the  custom  of  the  Jews  forbid  the 
idea  of  immersion.  So  the  argument  of  immersionists 
entirely  fails  in  this  case,  whatever  the  baptism  referred 
to  by  Clement  means.  But  we  have  shown  beyond 
reasonable  doubt  or  cavil  that  he  referred  to  the  baptisms 
of  the  Jews,  while  reclining  upon  the  couch  at  their  meals, 
by  washing  their  hands.  Collate  this  passage  from 
Clement  with  Mark  vii.  3  and  Luke  xi.  38,  and  you  will 
find  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the  Jewish  baptisms  before 
eating,  by  washing  their  hands.  These  passages  mutually 
explain  one  another  and  show  the  mode  or  manner  of  the 
Jewish  baptisms  before  eating. 

8.  Tkrtullian  comes  next,  and  is  usually  so 
placed.  Says  his  translator  in  his  Introduction  to  his 
works  in  the  Ante-Nicine  Library,  Vol.  III. : 

"Tertullian  was  born  a  heathen,  and  seems  to  have 
been  educated  at  Rome,  where  he  probably  practiced  as 
a  jurisconsult.  We  may,  perhaps,  adopt  most  of  the  ideas 
of  Allix,  as  conjecturally  probable,  and  assign  his  birth 
to  A.  D.  145.  He  became  a  Christian  about  185,  and  a 
presbyter  about  190.  The  period  of  his  strict  orthodoxy 
very  nearly  expires  with  the  century.  He  lived  to  an 
extreme  old  age,  and  some  suppose  even  to  A.  D.  240. 
More  probably  we  must  adopt  the  date  preferred  by 
recent  writers,  A.  D.  220." 

He  is  an  important  witness,  and  we  must  examine 
his  testimony  carefully.  Writers  on  our  side  have  never 
given  TertuUian  the  careful  examination  to  which  his 
testimony  is  entitled.  He  is  too  often  dismissed  with  the 
remark:  "TertuUian  is  the  first  man  to  mention  immer- 
sion, and  it  is  trine  immersion,  and  he  claims  that  it  was 
practiced  on  tradition  alone."  This  is  only  a  small  part 
of  his  testimony.  It  is  true  that  he  is  the  first  Christian 
writer  who  mentions  immersion  in  connection  with  bap- 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      255 

tism,  and  it  is  true  that  it  was  trine  immersion.     And  it 
is  true  also  that  he  claims  only  tradition  for  it ;  but  it  is 
not  true  that  immersion  was  the  baptism  spoken  of  by 
Tertullian.     In  his  "De  Corona"  he  speaks  of  the  things 
practiced  in  connection  with  baptism,  that  rested  wholly 
on  TRADITION,  and  he  mentions  immersion  as  one  of 
these  things.     But  this  is  not  all  he  has  to  say  on  the 
mode  of  baptism.     Let  us  carefully  examine  this  passage 
first,  and  then  we  will  take  some  of  the  passages  in  his 
"De  Baptismo."     In  the  "Chaplet,"  or  "De  Corona," 
in  the  third  chapter,  in  his  defense  of  tradition,  he  says : 
"And  how  long  shall  we  draw  the  saw  to  and  fro 
through  the   line,   when  we  have  an  ancient  practice, 
which  by  anticipation  has  made  for  us  the  state  of  the 
question?     If  no  passage  of  Scripture  has  prescribed  it, 
assuredly  custom,  which  without  doubt  flowed  from  tra- 
dition, has  confirmed  it.     For  how  can  anything  come 
into  use  if  it  has  not  first  been  handed  down?     Even  in 
pleading  tradition,  written  authority  you  say  must  be 
demanded.     Let  us  inquire,  therefore,  whether  tradition, 
unless  it  be  written,  should  not  be  admitted.     Certainly 
we  should  say  it  ought  not  to  be  admitted  if  no  cases  of 
other  practices  which  without  any  written  instrument 
we  maintain  on  the  ground  of  tradition  alone,  and  the 
countenance  thereafter  of  custom  affords  us  the  prece- 
dent.    To  deal  with  the  matter  briefly,  I  shall  begin  with 
baptism.     When  we  are  going  to  enter  the  water,  but  a 
little  before,  in  the  presence  of  the  congregation  and  under 
the  hand  of  the  president,  we  solemnly  profess  that  we 
disown  the  devil,  and  his  pomp,  and  his  angels.     Here- 
upon we  are  thrice  immersed,  making  a  somewhat  ampler 
pledge  than  the  Lord  has  appointed  in  the  Gospel.     Then 
when  we  are  taken  up  (as  new-born  children),  we  taste 
first  of  all  a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey,  and  from  that 


256      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

day  we  refrain  from  the  daily  bath  for  a  whole  week. 
We  take  also,  in  the  congregation  before  daybreak,  and 
from  the  hands  of  none  but  the  president,  the  sacrament 
of  the  eucharist,  which  the  Lord  both  commanded  to  be 
eaten  at  meal-times,  and  enjoined  to  be  taken  by  all  alike. 
As  often  as  the  anniversary  comes  around,  we  make  of- 
ferings for  the  dead  as  birth-day  honors.  We  count 
fasting  or  kneeling  on  the  Lord's  day  to  be  unlawful. 
We  rejoice  in  the  same  privilege  also  from  Easter  to 
Whitsunday.  We  feel  pained  should  any  wine  or  bread, 
even  our  own,  be  cast  upon  the  ground.  At  every  for- 
ward step  and  movement,  at  every  going  in  and  out,  when 
we  put  on  our  clothes  and  shoes,  when  we  bathe,  when  we 
sit  at  table,  when  we  light  the  lamps,  on  couch  or  seat  in 
all  the  ordinary  actions  of  daily  life,  we  trace  upon  the 
forehead  the  sign"  (that  is,  the  cross).  In  Chapter  IV.  he 
immediately  adds :  "If  for  these  and  other  such  rules  you 
insist  upon  having  positive  Scripture  injunction,  you  wilIv 
FIND  none;.    Tradition  will  be  held  forth  to  you  as 

THE  originator  OF  THEM,  CUSTOM  AS  THEIR  STRENGTH- 
ENER,  AND  FAITH  AS  THEIR  OBSERVER."  (Antc-Nicine 
Library,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  94-95-) 

I  have  given  this  long  extract  to  show  to  what  ex- 
tent TRADITION  had  introduced  unscriptural  customs  into 
the  Church  as  early  as  A.  D.  200 — one  hundred  years 
after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John.  I  wish  to  call  par- 
ticular attention  to  a  few  things  in  this  remarkable  ex- 
tract from  this  eminent  Christian  writer: 

1.  Note  that  all  the  things  enumerated  were  prac- 
ticed upon  the  authority  of  unwritten  tradition,  with- 
out any  Scripture  injunction  whatever. 

2.  He  does  not  tell  us  that  baptism  was  performed 
by  trine  IMMERSION ;  but  that  this  was  one  of  the  things 
connected   with   baptism,   just   as   the   other   things  he 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      257 
enumerates,  as  resting  on  th^  authority  of  Tradition 

AI^ONE. 

3.  It  is  generally  understood  that  TertuUian  is 
speaking  of  baptism  as  performed  by  trine  immersion, 
which  rests  upon  the  authority  of  tradition  alonk. 
But  this  is  not  the  case.  There  is  a  vast  difference  be- 
tween the  statement  that  baptism  is  performed  by  trine 
immersion,  on  the  "authority  of  tradition  ai,ons," 
and  that  "trink  immersion  was  onk  of  the  things 

PRACTICED    IN    CONNECTION    WITH    BAPTISM,    WHICH    WAS 
PRACTICED  UPON  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  TRADITION  ALONE." 

This  is  what  TertuUian  did  say,  and  not  the  former. 

4.  To  prove  that  this  is  the  true  sense  of  the  passage, 
we  need  only  to  turn  to  his  description  of  baptism  in  his 
"De  Baptismo,"  Chapter  II.,  where  he  says: 

"There  is  absolutely  nothing  which  makes  men's 
minds  more  obdurate  than  the  simplicity  of  the  divine 
works  which  are  visible  in  the  act,  when  compared  with 
the  grandeur  which  is  promised  thereto  in  the  EFFECT; 
so  from  the  very  fact,  that  with  so  great  simplicity, 
without  pomp,  without  any  considerable  novelty  of 
preparation,  finally  without  expense,  a  man  is  dipped  in 
water  and  amid  the  utterance  of  some  few  words  is 
SPRINKLED,  and  then  rises  again,  not  much  (or  not  at  all) 
the  cleaner,  the  consequent  attainment  of  eternity  is 
esteemed  the  more  incredible."  (Ante-Nicine  Library, 
Vol.  III.,  p.  669.) 

Now  note  that  the  words  or  formula  of  baptism  were 
not  used  in  the  dipping  or  immersion,  but  in  the  sprink- 
ling. That  the  dipping  was  preparatory  to  the  baptism, 
and  not  the  baptism  itself,  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the 
words  or  formula  of  baptism  were  not  used  in  connection 
with  the  DIPPING.  Dipping  without  the  words  or  formula 
of  baptism  is  not  baptism.     No  immersionist  will  contend 


258      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christicm  Baptism, 

that  it  is.  The  absence  of  the  words  or  formula  of  bap- 
tism in  the  dipping  conclusively  proves  that  the  dipping 
was  not  the  baptism,  and  no  part  of  it,  but  was  prepar- 
atory to  it.  The  baptism  was  the  sprinkling  when  the 
WORDS  or  formula  of  baptism  were  used.  Here  the  ar- 
gument is  complete,  and  from  it  there  is  no  appeal.  Ter- 
tullian  does  not  say  that  baptism  was  performed  by  trine 
immersion,  but  he  does  say  that  the  trine  immersion 
which  was  practiced  preparatory  to  baptism  was  prac- 
ticed upon  the  authority  of  "tradition  alonk." 

Baptism  is  not  practiced  upon  the  authority  of  tra- 
dition, but  upon  the  authority  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  the 
GREAT  commission.  No  writer  ever  speaks  of  baptism 
resting  upon  the  authority  of  tradition.  When  Tertul- 
lian  says  immersion  rests  upon  "tradition  alone,"  he  by 
that  expression  declares  it  is  not  baptism. 

In  Chapter  V.  of  "De  Baptismo"  he  calls  the  various 
purifications,  washings,  and  sprinklings  of  the  heathen 
* '  baptisms. ' '     He  says : 

"Well,  but  the  nations  who  are  strangers  to  all  un- 
derstanding of  spiritual  powers  ascribe  to  their  idols  the 
imbuing  of  waters  with  the  selfsame  efficacy.  So  they  do, 
but  they  cheat  themselves  with  waters  that  are  widowed. 
For  washing  is  the  channel  through  which  they  are  in- 
itiated into  some  sacred  rites — of  some  notorious  Isis  or 
Mithra.  The  gods  themselves  likewise  they  honor  by 
washings.  Moreover,  by  carrying  water  around  and 
sprinkling  it,  they  everywhere  expiate  country-seats, 
houses,  temples,  and  whole  cities;  at  all  events,  at  the 
Apollinarian  and  Eleusinian  games  they  are  baptized; 
and  presume  that  the  effect  of  their  doing  that  is  their  re- 
generation and  the  remission  of  the  penalties  due  to  their 
perjuries.  Among  the  ancients,  again,  whoever  had  de- 
filed himself  with  murder  was  wont  to  go  in  quest  of 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      259 

purifying  waters.  .  .  .  Which  fact  being  acknowl- 
edged, we  recognize  here  also  the  zeal  of  the  devil  ri- 
valling the  things  of  God,  while  we  find  him  too  practicing 
baptism  on  his  subjects."     {Ibid.,  p.  671.) 

Here  the  various  washings  and  sprinklings  of  the 
heathen  are  called  "the  devil's  baptism"  by  Tertullian. 
He  calls  these  sprinklings  "baptisms."  All  these  bap- 
tisms of  country-seats,  houses,  and  cities  were  done  by 
sprinkling  or  throwing  water  on.  Not  one  of  them  was 
done  by  immersion.  Yet  he  calls  them  all  "baptisms." 
This  proves  he  was  not  an  immersionist,  for  no  immer- 
sionist  will  call  an  act  of  sprinkling  "baptism." 

In  his  "Treatise  on  Repentance,"  addressing  a  cer- 
tain character,  he  says: 

"For  who  will  grant  to  you,  a  man  of  so  faithless  re- 
pentance, A  SINGLE  SPRINKLE  of  any  water?"  ("De 
Penitentia,"  Chapter  VI.,  Ante-Nicine  Library,  p.  661.) 

But  our  immersionist  friends  make  much  of  what 
Tertullian  says  in  his  "De  Baptismo,"  Chapter  IV.,  where 
he  says : 

"And  accordingly  it  makes  no  difiFerence  whether  a 
man  be  washed  in  a  sea  or  a  pool,  a  stream  or  a  fount,  a 
lake  or  a  trough,  nor  is  there  any  distinction  between  those 
whom  John  baptized  in  the  Jordan  and  those  whom  Peter 
baptized  in  the  Tiber." 

They  assume  that  when  Tertullian  speaks  of  John 
baptizing  in  the  Jordan  and  Peter  baptizing  in  the  Tiber, 
that  they  therefore  baptized  by  immersion,  and  they 
translate  tinxit,  which  Tertullian  here  uses  to  translate 
haptidzo,  " IMMERSE,"  regardless  of  the  fact  that  the 
primary  meaning  of  tingo  is  "to  touch,"  and  its  general 
meaning  is  "to  stain,  to  color,  to  moisten,  to  sprinkle," 
etc.,  and  regardless  of  the  fact  also  that  Tertullian  uses 
this  very  word  in  Chapter  I.  of  this  book  in  contrast  with 


26o      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

merge  (dip)  to  express  baptism  by  sprinkling!  Bap- 
tism in  Tertullian's  time  usually  took  place  in  the  water. 
Immersion  was  practiced  in  connection  with  baptism,  as 
a  preparation  for  it ;  but  it  was  not  the  baptism.  It  was 
practiced  upon  the  authority  of  tradition  alone.  Baptism 
is  enjoined  by  divine  authority.  Now  turn  and  look 
again  at  the  pictures  that  have  come  down  to  us  from 
Tertullian's  time,  and  the  whole  matter  is  explained. 
The  baptisms  in  the  Jordan  were  performed,  not  by  im- 
mersion, but  by  aspersion,  and  so  were  the  baptisms  in 
the  Tiber,  or  in  the  sea,  or  in  the  river,  fountain,  pool,  or 
trough. 

Tertullian,  when  he  translates  haptidzo,  always  uses 
tingo  in  some  of  its  forms,  not  mergo  or  immergo.  But 
when  he  speaks  of  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  he 
always  uses  mergo  or  immergo  in  some  of  their  forms. 
Why  does  he  do  this?  He  certainly  understood  both 
languages,  and  if  haptidzo  means  to  immerse,  why  did  he 
not  translate  it  mergo  or  immergo? 

Our  immersionist  friends  always  translate  tingo  in  all 
its  forms  "immerse"  when  used  by  Tertullian  for  bap- 
tism. This  is  without  the  slightest  authority,  and  in 
violation  of  the  testimony  of  all  the  lexicons  in  their 
definitions  of  tingo.  The  Latin  tingo  is  derived  from  the 
Greek  reyyo)  (teggo),  pronounced  "tengo."  This  is  ad- 
mitted on  all  hands.  Tengo,  the  root  of  tingo,  is  thus 
defined  by  the  lexicons : 

"i.  GrovBS  defines  tengo  (reyyu)),  to  moisten,  to 
wet,  water,  sprinkle,  bedew. 

"2.  LiDDKivL  and  ScoTT:  'Tengo,  to  wet,  to  mois- 
ten, to  bedew  with,  especially  with  tears.  III.  To  dye, 
stain;  Latin,  tingere,*  etc. 

"3.  Stephanus:  'Tengo,  to  moisten,  to  make  wet, 
with  tears,  dew,  rain,'  etc. 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      261 

"4.     Papk:     'Tengo,  moisten,  wet,  shed  tears.' 

**5.     Passow:     'Tengo,  moisten,  wet,  shed  tears.' 

"6.  RosT  and  Palm:  'Tengo,  to  moisten,  to  wet, 
to  shed  tears,'  etc. 

"Let  us  now  have  the  Latin  lexicons  on  this  word,  as 
spelled  in  Latin,  translated  immerse  and  dip  always  by 
Drs.  Conant,  Graves,  Wilkes,  etc. 

"i.  Andrews:  'Tinge,  to  wet,  to  moisten;  {B)  to 
soak  or  color,  to  dye,  color,  tinge.' 

"2.  FrEund:  'Tingo,  to  wet,  to  moisten;  tengo, 
brecho,  hugraino,  moisten,  shed  tears,  rain,  to  sprinkle 
water,  sprinkle,  to  moisten,  to  bedew,  to  bathe,  wash,  dip 
in,  plunge,  immerse;  color,  stain,  tinge,  tint.' 

"3.  AinsworTh:  'Tinge ,  first,  to  dye,  color,  stain; 
second,  to  sprinkle,  to  imbrue;  third,  to  wash;  fourth, 
to  paint.' 

"4.     AnThon:     'Tinge,  moisten,  wet,'  etc. 

"  5 .     White  :     '  Tinge ,  moisten ,  wet , '  etc . 

**This  is  making  poor  headway  to  show  that  tinge  is 
synonymous  with  immerse. 

"6.  Ovid:  'Tingere,  wet  the  body  with  sprinkled 
water.     {Tingere  corpus  aqua  aspersa.) ' 

"7.  'And  seems  to  sprinkle  with  briny  dew  the 
surrounding  clouds.  {Et  inductus  aspergine  tingere  nuhes 
videtur.y 

"Here  in  both  cases  tinge  is  defined  in  its  effect  by 
'sprinkle' — by  a  Latin  who  lived  in  the  apostolic  age. 

"8.  'By  chance  his  hounds,  led  by  the  blood- 
stained track.'  Was  the  ground  immersed  or  dipped  in 
the  blood  of  the  wounded  stag? 

"11.  Ovid:  'Let  us  wash  [tinge  is  the  word]  our 
naked  bodies  with  water  poured  upon  them.' 

"(i)  Here  the  mode  in  which  tinge  is  effected  is 
again  given — the  water  is  poured  upon  the  naked  bodies. 


262       The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"(2)     It  shows  the  manner  of  ancient  baths. 

"(3)  Drs.  Graves,  Toy,  etc.,  say  that  tingo  is 
equivalent  to  baptidzo  in  the  lexicons  and  the  Latin 
fathers,  TertuUian,  Cyprian,  Jerome,  etc.  Conant  ren- 
ders it  'immerse'  constantly  also,  as  well  as  Wilkes. 

"(4)  All  these  are  as  literal  uses  as  language  can 
offer.  They  are  all  real  persons  washed  with  real  water, 
literally  poured  upon  them. 

"12.  Horace:  'And  wet  [tinguet]  the  pavement 
with  wine.'  What  was- the  mode  of  tingo  here  where  wine 
was  let  fall  on  the  pavement? 

"13.  Ovid:  'He  beat  the  ground,  stained  [tinctam] 
with  guilty  blood.' 

"14.  Calpuronius:  'To  wet  [tingere]  the  pastures 
with  dew.'  .Here  the  dew  falls  on  the  pastures  and 
(tingo)  wets  them.     What  is  the  mode? 

"Aside  from  hosts  of  like  citations,  Fiirst  uses  tingo 
in  his  Latin  Lexicon  to  define  the  word  that  in  his  German 
Lexicon  is  defined  by  benetzen,  wet.  Schindler,  Castell, 
etc.,  use  tingo  constantly  where  it  is  with  tears,  dew, 
rain."     (Ditzler  on  "Baptism,"  pp.  252,  253,  254,  255.) 

In  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  we  ask:  What  au- 
thority have  our  immersionist  friends  to  always  translate 
this  word  in  all  its  forms  "immerse,"  where  it  is  used  in 
regard  to  baptism?  Such  a  course  is  arbitrary,  and  con- 
trary to  their  own  rule  and  every  sound  rule  of  interpre- 
tation: which  is,  that  words  are  to  be  taken  in  their  or- 
dinary and  most  usual  signification,  unless  their  connec- 
tion in  any  given  case  manifestly  demands  a  different 
meaning.  Our  immersionist  friends  insist  that  words 
must  be  taken  in  their  primary  meaning,  or  the  meaning 
fixed  upon  them  by  general  or  universal  use.  By  this 
rule  they  dare  not  translate  tingo  "immerse,"  for  that  is 
neither  its  primary  meaning  nor  the  meaning  fixed  upon 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      263 

it  by  general  or  universal  use.  But  the  exigencies  of 
their  theory  demand  it,  and  every  rule  of  language  and 
interpretation  must  give  way  to  their  theory. 

Dr.  Carson  and  immersionist  writers  in  general  hold 
that  tingo  is  the  equivalent  of  haptidzo,  and  translate  both 
"immerse."  Now  if  tingo  is  the  equivalent  of  baptidzo, 
then  unquestionably  baptidzo  is  not  a  word  of  mode ;  for 
we  have  proved  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt  or 
quibble,  by  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  lexicons  and 
by  the  use  of  the  word  in  standard  Latin  classical  writers, 
that  tingo  is  not  a  word  of  mode,  but  of  denomination, 
the  mode  of  which  is  usually  by  aspersion.  Now  if  these 
words  are  equivalent,  then  baptidzo  is  not  a  word  of  mode, 
but  of  denomination,  the  mode  of  which  is  usually  by 
aspersion !  We  thus  prove  our  position  by  immersionists 
themselves!  Again,  if  baptidzo  and  tingo  are  equivalent, 
then  baptidzo  and  mergo,  immergo,  and  immersio  are  not 
equivalent.  Mergo,  immergo,  and  immersio  are  defined, 
''to  immerse,  dip,  dip  in,"  etc. ;  while  tingo  is  defined,  "to 
wet,  to  moisten,"  etc.  These  two  lyatin  words  are  not 
equivalent ;  one  is  a  word  of  mode,  the  other  is  a  word  of 
denomination.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  TertuUian, 
who  understood  his  own  language,  the  Latin,  and  also  the 
Greek,  invariably  translated  baptidzo  by  tingo  in  some  of 
its  forms;  but  immersionists  translate  it  by  mergo,  im- 
mergo, or  immersio — English,  immersion.  TertuUian  al- 
ways translated  it  by  a  word  of  denomination ;  but  when 
he  spoke  of  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion,  he  always 
used  mergo  in  some  of  its  forms.  Is  not  this  significant? 
Does  it  not  totally  overthrow  the  position  of  immer- 
sionists? And  does  it  not  prove  conclusively  that  if  bap- 
tidzo and  tingo  are  equivalent,  then  baptidzo  and  mergo 
are  not  equivalent?  Plainly  our  immersionist  friends 
have  gotten  themselves  into  a  dilemma,  either  horn  of 


264      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

which  must  gore  them  to  death.  They  must  either  give 
up  their  position  on  the  meaning  of  tingo  or  baptidzo,  and 
either  means  death  to  their  whole  theory  of  immersion. 

9.  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage  in  North  Africa, 
from  A.  D.  248  to  258,  is  our  next  witness.  This  learned 
bishop  held  that  baptism  by  simple  sprinkling  when  ne- 
cessity demanded  it,  as  in  the  case  of  sickness  or  weakness, 
was  equally  valid  and  efficacious  as  the  more  elaborate 
form  when  washing  or  immersion  accompanied  the  or- 
dinance.    In  Letter  LXXV.,  to  Magnus,  he  says: 

"You  ask  also,  dearest  son,  what  I  thought  of  those 
who  obtain  God's  grace  in  sickness  and  weakness,  whether 
they  are  to  be  accounted  legitimate  Christians,  for  that 
they  are  not  to  be  washed,  but  sprinkled,  with  saving 
water.  In  this  point  my  diffidence  and  modesty  pre- 
judges none,  so  as  to  prevent  any  from  feeling  what  he 
thinks  right,  and  from  doing  what  he  feels  to  be  right. 
As  far  as  my  poor  understanding  conceives  it,  I  think  that 
the  divine  benefits  can  in  no  respect  be  mutilated  and 
weakened;  nor  can  anything  less  occur  in  that  case, 
where  there  is  full  and  entire  faith  both  of  the  giver  and 
receiver,  is  accepted  what  is  drawn  from  the  divine  gifts. 
For  in  the  sacrament  of  salvation  the  contagion  of  sins  is 
not  in  such  wise  washed  away,  as  the  filth  of  the  skin  and 
of  the  body  is  washed  away  in  the  carnal  and  ordinary 
washing,  as  that  there  should  be  saltpeter  and  other  ap- 
plications also,  and  a  bath,  and  a  basin  wherewith  this 
vile  body  must  be  washed  and  purified.  Otherwise  is  the 
breast  of  the  believer  washed.  Otherwise  is  the  mind  of 
man  purified  by  the  merit  of  faith.  In  the  sacraments  of 
salvation  when  necessity  compels,  and  God  bestows  His 
mercy,  the  divinK  methods  confer  the  whole  benefit  on 
believers,  nor  ought  it  to  trouble  anyone  that  sick  people 
seem  to  be  sprinkled  or  afifused,  when  they  obtain  the 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      265 

Lord's  grace,  when  the  Holy  Scripture  speaks  by  the 
mouth  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel  and  says:  'Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean: 
from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I 
cleanse  you.  And  I  will  give  you  a  new  heart,  and  a 
new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you.'  Also  in  Numbers: 
'And  the  man  that  shall  be  unclean  until  the  evening 
shall  be  purified  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day 
he  shall  be  clean:  but  if  he  shall  not  be  purified  on  the 
third  day,  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  not  be  clean. 
And  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel:  because  the 
water  of  sprinkling  hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him.* 
And  again:  'And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying, 
Take  the  Levites  from  among  the  children  of  Israel  and 
cleanse  them.  And  this  shall  you  do  unto  them  to 
cleanse  them:  thou  shalt  sprinkle  them  with  the  water 
of  purification.'  And  again:  'The  water  of  sprinkling 
is  a  purification.'  Whence  it  appears  that  the  sprinkling 
also  of  water  prevails  BQUALiyY  with  the  washing  of  salva- 
tion; and  when  this  is  done  in  the  church,  where  the 
faith  both  of  receiver  and  giver  is  sound,  all  things  hold 
and  may  be  consummated  and  perfected  by  the  majesty 
of  the  Lord  and  the  truth  of  faith."  (Ante-Nicine  Li- 
brary, Vol.  v.,  pp.  400-401.) 

(i)  No  immersionist  could  or  would  write  such  a 
letter  as  this.  That  Cyprian  wrote  this  letter  proves  that 
he  was  not  an  immersionist,  and  that  immersion  was  not 
considered  essential  to  the  ordinance  in  his  day.  Note 
that  here  he  calls  baptism  by  sprinkling  "the  divine 

METHOD." 

(2)     He  quotes  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  24-26  to  prove  that 
baptism   by   sprinkling   is   Scriptural;  and   he   quotes 
from    the    purifications   under    the    law,    performed   by 
sprinkling,  to  prove  the  same  thing. 
—18— 


266      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

(3)  He  declares  "that  the  sprinkling  also  of  water 
PREVAILS  EQUALLY  with  the  washing  of  salvation." 

(4)  In  his  time,  as  in  that  of  TertuUian,  generally 
there  was  an  immersion  connected  with  baptism,  but  it 
was  not  essential  to  the  ordinance.  Sprinkling  was 
vaUd,  and  was  "THE  divine  method."  Immersion  was 
a  TRADITIONAL  addition,  as  is  declared  by  TertuUian. 
Again,  in  Epistle  LXXIII.,  he  says:  "Or  if  they  attrib- 
ute the  effect  of  baptism  to  the  majesty  of  the  name,  so 
that  they  who  are  baptized  anywhere  and  anyhow,  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  are  adjudged  renewed  and 
sanctified."     (Jhid.,  p.  387.) 

Here  is  a  plain  statement  that  baptism  might  be 
performed  by  different  modes,  and  in  different  places, 
and  still  be  vaUd  baptism,  if  performed  in  the  right  name. 
Cyprian  must  be  given  up  as  an  immersionist  or  as  an  ad- 
vocate of  immersion.  If  an  immersionist  to-day  would 
write  such  letters  to  a  young  immersionist  preacher  as 
Cyprian  wrote  to  Magnus  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  he 
would  be  expelled  from  the  Church  at  the  next  church 
meeting. 

The  utter  inability  of  the  very  best  and  most  con- 
scientious immersionists  to  deal  fairly  with  the  early 
fathers  on  this  subject  is  seen  in  Dr.  Carson's  treatment 
of  Cyprian.  He  says  Cyprian  did  not  consider  perfusion 
baptism,  but  only  a  substitute  for  it.  His  exact  lan- 
guage, in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Hall,  is:  "The  author's  own 
quotation  from  Cyprian  might  show  him  that  even  that 
father,  who  makes  perfusion  a  valid  substitute  for  baptism 
in  case  of  necessity,  does  not  consider  perfusion  to  be 
baptism."  (Carson  on  "Baptism,"  p.  417.)  There  is  not 
a  hint  of  any  such  thing  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian.  He 
calls  perfusion  in  sickness  "baptism,"  not  a  substitute 
for  it.     In  this  same  epistle  to  Magnus  from  which  I  have 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian-  Baptism.      267 

quoted  he  says:  "This  finally  in  very  fact  also  we  ex- 
perience, that  those  who  are  baptized  by  urgent  necessity 
in  sickness,"  etc.  Did  he  call  this  "a  substitute  for  bap- 
tism," or  did  he  call  it  "baptism"?  All  through  the 
epistle  he  calls  it  "baptism,"  and  he  declares  that  it  is 
"EQUALLY  efficacious"  with  Washing  or  immersion. 
Read  again  what  Cyprian  says,  and  see  how  utterly 
groundless  is  the  statement  of  Dr.  Carson. 

10.  OrigEn,  born  A.  D.  185  and  died  A.  D.  254,  was 
contemporary  with  both  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  and  in  his 
earliest  years  with  Clement  of  Alexandria.  He  belonged 
to  the  Alexandrian  School,  and  was  the  most  learned  of 
all  the  Greek  fathers.  He  certainly  understood  his  own 
language,  and  he  speaks  of  baptism  as  "a  pouring  of 
water."     He  says: 

"How  came  you  to  think  that  Elias,  when  he  should 
come,  would  baptize,  who  did  not  in  Ahab's  time  baptize 
the  wood  upon  the  altar,  which  was  to  be  washed  before 
it  was  burnt,  by  the  Lord's  appearing  in  fire?  But  he 
ordered  the  priest  to  do  that;  not  once  only,  but  he  said, 
'Do  it  the  second  time,'  and  they  did  it  the  second  time; 
and  'Do  it  the  third  time,'  and  they  did  it  the  third  time." 
("Campbell  and  Rice  Debate,"  p.  158.) 

Turn  to  First  Kings  xviii.  33-34,  and  you  will  see  that 
this  baptism  was  performed  by  pouring  the  water  upon 
the  sacrifice  and  the  wood  upon  the  altar.  This  act  of 
POURING  Origen  calls  "a  baptism."  Did  this  most 
learned  of  all  the  Greek  fathers  understand  the  meaning 
of  baptidzo9  If  he  did,  then  haptidzo  means  to  pour 
UPON.  But  our  immersionist  friends  ask  us:  "Were  not 
the  sacrifice,  the  wood,  and  the  altar  as  wet  as  if  they 
had  been  immersed?"  It  does  not  matter  how  wet  they 
were.  Dr.  Carson  tells  us  that  haptidzo  "means  mode, 
and  nothing  but  mode";  and  Mr.  Campbell  tells  us  that 


268      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"it  means  action,  and  nothing  but  action."  They  tell 
us  it  has  no  reference  to  the  element  in  which  the  mode  or 
action  is  performed ;  it  simply  expresses  mode  or  action. 
Here  was  an  action  performed,  and  that  action  was 
POURING,  and  Origen  calls  that  action  "baptism."  This 
settles  two  questions:  (i)  that  baptidzo  means  to  pour; 
(2)  that  in  Origen's  time  baptism  was  performed  by 

POURING. 

II.  EusEBius  Pamphilius,  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in 
Palestine,  the  father  of  ecclesiastical  history,  A.  D.  300  to 
about  335,  in  his  " Ecclesiasitcal  History"  bears  clear  and 
direct  testimony  to  baptism  by  affusion.  Speaking  of 
one  Bassilades,  a  catechumen,  who  was  in  prison,  he  says : 

"On  this  the  brethren  gave  him  the  seal  in  the  Lord 
[that  is,  baptized  him,  for  that  is  what  is  meant  by  "the 
seal"],  and  he,  bearing  a  distinguished  testimony  to  the 
Lord,  was  beheaded."  (Eusebius,  "Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory," p.  224.) 

Bassilades  was  in  prison  when  he  was  baptized,  and 
Eusebius  speaks  of  this  as  a  common  custom. 

Prof.  Moses  Stuart  gives  us  two  examples,  taken 
from  the  Acts  of  St.  Lawrence,  showing  that  this  was 
common:  one  the  baptism  of  a  prisoner,  tied  to  the  stake, 
just  before  his  execution,  by  pouring  water  on  his  head 
from  a  pitcher,  which  is  illustrated  in  our  pictures  of 
baptism. 

"  'The  Acts  of  St.  Cornelius,'  says  Bishop  Kenrick, 
p.  166,  'speaks  of  Sallustia,  who,  being  converted,  pre- 
sented to  the  Pontiff  a  vessel  with  water,  wherewith  he 
might  baptize  her.' 

"  'Five  martyrs,'  says  Bishop  Kenrick,  same  page, 
*of  Samasata,  in  the  year  297,  when  in  prison  for  the  faith 
of  Christ,  sent  for  the  priest  James,  entreating  him  to 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      269 

come,  and  bring  with  him  a  vessel  of  water  to  baptize 
them.'  "     (Chapman  on  "Baptism,"  p.  229.) 

Kusebius,  in  his  Panegyric  on  the  Church  of  Tyre, 
after  its  restoration  after  the  Diocletian  persecution, 
speaking  of  the  various  outer  stations  for  the  catechumens 
and  those  who  were  not  permitted  to  enter  the  church 
and  take  part  in  the  worship,  in  describing  the  arrange- 
ments for  baptism,  says : 

"Here  too  he  placed  the  symbols  of  the  sacred  pur- 
ification, by  providing  fountains,  built  opposite  the  tem- 
ple [nave],  which  by  the  abundant  effusion  of  its  water 
afford  the  means  of  cleansing  to  those  who  proceed  to 

the  inner  part  of  the  sanctuary, which 

buildings  were  erected  by  this  our  most  peaceful  Solomon, 
the  founder  of  the  temple,  for  those  who  require  yet  the 
purification,  and  the  sprinkling  of  water  and  the  Holy 
Spirit."  (Busebius,  "Ecclesiastical  History,"  pp.  417- 
418.) 

This  Panegyric  was  delivered  A.  D.  315,  and  it  proves 
that  baptism  was  performed  in  the  baptisteries,  built 
outside  the  church,  or  in  the  parts  where  the  catechu- 
mens were  only  permitted  to  enter,  by  affusion — yea, 
BY  sprinkling!  There  may  have  been  a  preparatory 
washing  or  immersion  before  the  baptism,  as  was  in  Ter- 
tuUian's  time;  but  the  baptism  in  the  baptistery  of  the 
Church  of  Tyre  was  performed  by  sprinkling. 

We  have  already  given  the  testimony  of  Lactantius, 
A.  D.  320,  Aurelius  Prudentius,  and  Paulinus,  Bishop  of 
Nola,  concerning  the  baptism  of  Christ  by  affusion — all 
of  the  fourth  century. 

12.  The  great  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  A.  D. 
400, says: 

"Unless  wheat  be  ground  and  sprinkled  with  water, 
it  cannot  come  to  the  form  which  is  called  bread.     So  you 


270      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

also  were  first  ground  as  it  were  by  mystic  exorcisms* 
Then  was  added  baptism ;  ye  were  as  it  were  sprinkIvKd, 
that  ye  might  come  to  the  form  of  bread."  (T.  V.  Sermo. 
CCXXVII.,  ad  Infantes  de  sacramentis,  Col.  141 7.) 

"Bishop  Kenrick  thus  presents  this  testimony:  'St. 
Augustine  remarks  that  bread  is  formed  of  wheat  ground 
in  the  mill  and  sprinkled  with  water,  and  then  adds :  "In 
like  manner  you  also  were  ground,  as  it  were  by  the  humil- 
iation of  fasting  and  by  mystic  exorcisms,  baptism  fol- 
lowed, and  you  were  sprinkled  with  water  that  ye  might 
become  bread."  '  "     (Chapman  on  "Baptism,"  p.  235.) 

13.  We  will  close  up  this  part  of  our  argument  with 
the  testimony  of  SozomeJn.  Sozomen  was  an  eminent 
Greek  lawyer  and  ecclesiastical  historian,  who  resided  many 
years  in  Constantinople.  He  was  born  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifth  century,  in  the  town  of  Bethelia,  near 
the  ancient  city  of  Gaza,  in  Palestine.  His  father  and 
grandfather  before  him  were  both  Christians,  and  he  was 
brought  up  in  the  Christian  faith,  and  educated  in  a  mon- 
astery. He  wrote  a  history  of  the  Church  from  the  as- 
cension of  our  Lord  to  the  deposition  of  Licinius,  A.  D. 
324,  which  has  been  lost.  The  history  from  which  I  quote 
covers  the  period  from  A.  D.  324  to  A.  D.  440.  He  was  a 
Greek  of  great  learning,  and  made  the  study  of  ecclesi- 
astical history  a  specialty.  He  was  born  only  about 
three  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John , 
and  his  Christian  ancestry  carried  him  back  to  within 
nearly  two  hundred  years  of  that  event.  He  had  every 
opportunity  and  facility  to  know  what  was  the  practice 
of  the  early  Church,  and  what  was  the  opinion  of  the  early 
Church  as  to  the  practice  of  the  apostles.  Speaking  of 
Eunomius  and  his  heresy,  he  says : 

"Some  assert  that  Eunomius  was  the  first  who 
ventured  to  maintain  that  baptism  ought  to  be  performed 


Tlie  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      271 

by  iMMBRSiON,  and  To  corrupt  in  this  manner  the 
APOSTOLICAL  TRADITION,  which  has  been  carefully  handed 
down  to  the  present  day.  .  .  .  Others  assert,  I  be- 
lieve, with  greater  appearance  of  probability,  that  Theoph- 
ranes,  a  native  of  Cappadocia,  and  Eutychus,  both  zeal- 
ous propagators  of  this  heresy  [the  Arian],  seceded  from 
communion  with  Bunomius  during  the  succeeding  reign, 
and  introduced  heretical  doctrines  concerning  baptism : 
they  taught  that  baptism  ought  not  to  be  administered 
in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  but  in  the  name  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  It  appears  that  Bunomius  broached  no  new 
opinions  on  the  subject,  but  remained  from  the  begiiming 

firmly  attached  to  the  sentiments  of  Arius 

But  whether  it  was  Bunomius  or  any  other  person  who 
first  introduced  heretical  opinions  concerning  baptism, 
it  seems  to  me  that  such  innovators,  whoever  they  may 
have  been,  were  alone  in  danger  of,  according  to  their 
own  representation,  quitting  this  life  without  having  re- 
ceived the  rite  of  holy  baptism;  for  if,  after  having  re- 
ceived baptism  according  to  the  ancient  mode  of  the 
Church,  they  found  it  impossible  to  confer  it  on  them- 
selves, it  must  be  admitted  that  they  introduced  a  prac- 
tice to  which  they  had  themselves  not  submitted,  and 
thus  undertook  to  administer  to  others  what  had  never 
been  administered  to  themselves.  Thus,  after  having 
laid  down  certain  principles,  according  to  their  own  fancy, 
without  any  data,  they  proceed  to  bestow  upon  others 
what  they  had  not  themselves  received.  The  absurdity 
of  this  assumption  is  manifest  from  their  own  confession ; 
for  they  admit  that  those  who  have  not  received  the  rite 
of  baptism  have  not  the  right  to  administer  it.  Now,  ac- 
cording to  their  opinion,  those  who  have  not  received  the 
rite  of  baptism  in  conformity  with  their  mode  of  admin- 
istering are  unbaptized;  and  they  confirm  this  opinion 


272      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

by  their  practice,  inasmuch  as  they  re-baptize  all  those 
who  join  their  sect,  although  previously  baptized  by  the 
Catholic  Church."  (Sozomen's  "Ecclesiastical  History,*, 
pp.  282,  283,  284.) 

There  are  several  things  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  in 
this  remarkable  passage  from  Sozomen : 

(i)  He  calls  immersion  a  corruption  of  '  'the  apos- 
ToiyiCAL  TRADITION  which  has  been  carefully  handed  down 
to  the  present  day."  He  uses  the  word  "tradition"  here 
in  the  sense  in  which  Paul  used  it  in  Second  Thessaloni- 
ans  ii.  15,  of  apostolic  teaching  or  command,  and  not  the 
sense  in  which  TertuUian  uses  it,  of  traditional  teaching, 
without  any  divine  or  apostolic  authority. 

(2)  He  calls  immersion  a  "hERETicai^  opinion  con- 
cerning baptism." 

(3)  He  calls  it  an  "innovation,"  and  those  who 
introduced  it  "innovators." 

(4)  He  affirms  that  it  is  not  "the  ancient  mode"  of 
administering  baptism. 

(5)  He  speaks  of  the  "mode"  of  baptism,  both 
"the  ancient  mode"  and  their  "mode."  What  becomes 
of  Dr.  Carson's  position,  that  baptism  is  "mode,  and 
nothing  but  mode"?  And  what  also  becomes  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  "specific  action  of  baptism,  and  specific 
action  only"?  Did  this  eminent  Greek  scholar  under- 
stand his  own  native  language?  If  he  did,  then  haptidzo 
is  not  a  word  of  "mode"  or  "action"  at  all,  for  he  speaks 
of  different  "modes"  of  baptism,  and  he  declares  that 
immersion  was  not  the  "ancient"  or  apostolic  mode, 
but  a  "corruption"  of  the  ancient  mode,  "a  heresy" 
and  "an  innovation."  Could  language  be  more  ex- 
plicit, or  testimony  more  definite  and  clear  to  the  fact 
that  immersion  was  not  "the  ancient  or  apostolic  bap- 
tism"?    The  testimony  of  this  eminent  native  Greek 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      273 

scholar  outweighs  all  the  opinions  of  all  the  modern  im- 
mersionist  scholars  and  all  the  Pedo- Baptist  concessions 
which  our  immersionist  friends  parade  before  us  in  sup- 
port of  their  theory  of  immersion  and  of  the  meaning 
of  baptidzo.  This  is  testimony  that  amounts  to  some- 
thing; and,  taken  in  connection  with  the  facts  presented 
in  the  preceding  pages,  demonstrates  to  every  reflecting 
mind,  not  wholly  dominated  by  prejudice  and  impervious 
to  reason  and  evidence,  that  immersion  was  not  the 
practice  of  the  early  or  of  the  apostolic  Church,  but  that 
the  divine  and  apostolic  "mode"  was  by  affusion. 

14.  After  this  time  we  find  both  modes  practiced, 
sometimes  one  and  sometimes  the  other. 

"Gennadius  of  Marseilles,  in  the  fifth  century,  says 
baptism  was  administered  in  the  Gallic  Church,  in  his 
time,  indifferently  by  immersion  or  sprinkling.  In  the 
thirteenth  century,  Thomas  Aquinas  says  that  baptism 
may  be  given  not  only  by  immersion,  but  also  by  affu- 
sion of  water  or  by  sprinkling  with  it.  And  Erasmus 
affirms  (Epist.  76)  that  in  his  time  it  was  the  custom  to 
sprinkle  infants  in  Holland,  and  to  dip  them  in  England." 
(Watson's  "Institutes,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  649.) 

This  brings  us  up  to  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation. 

15.  The  practice  of  the  Greek  Church  is  claimed  by 
immersionists  as  supporting  their  practice.  They  tell  us 
that  the  Greek  Church  understands  the  Greek  language 
and  practices  immersion.  The  great  mass  of  the  Greek 
Church  know  no  more  about  the  Greek  language  than 
they  do  about  the  Sanscrit.  The  great  mass  of  the  Greek 
Church  are  Russians.  Only  a  small  part  of  the  Greek 
Church  speak  the  modern  Greek  language;  so  this  play 
upon  the  word  "GrEEk,"  applied  to  the  Greek  Church, 
cannot  avail  them.  But  the  Greek  Church  does  NOT 
practice  immersion. 


274      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

"SbvERUS,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  513,  says: 
'The  priest  lets  the  person  to  be  baptized  down  into  the 
baptistery,  looking  to  the  east,  and  puts  his  right  hand  on 
his  head,  and  with  his  left  hand  raises  the  water  thrice 
from  the  water  in  the  font,  behind  and  at  either  of  his 
sides,  and  says  these  words :  "N.  is  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  Amen,  and  of  the  Son,  Amen,  and  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  Amen,  for  life  eternal."  '  "  (Chapman  on 
"Baptism,"  p.  245.) 

It  is  due  Mr.  Chapman  and  the  cause  to  state  that  in 
a  note  at  the  foot  of  the  page  he  says : 

"Bishop  Kenrick,  in  a  communication  before  us,  ob- 
serves: 'The  quotation  from  Severus  is  made  on  the  au- 
thority of  Beveridge  Guido  Fabricus.  The  editor  of  the 
work  of  Severus  styles  him  Patriarch  of  Alexandria.  The 
work  is  on  the  rites  of  baptism  and  communion,  for  the 
use  of  Christians  in  Syria,  printed  in  Syrian  and  Latin,  at 
Antwerp,  in  1572.  The  fact  that  it  was  intended  for 
Syria  favors  the  supposition  that  the  author  was  of  An- 
tioch  rather  than  Alexandria;  and  some  indeed  ascribe 
the  work  to  Severus  of  Sozole  (if  we  understand  the  ref- 
erence), who  sat  at  Antioch,  a  noted  Butychian.  The 
work  is  noticed  in  the  sixteenth  volume  of  Histoire  des 
Auteurs  Bcclesiastiques,  by  Collier,  p.  296.'  " 

The  practice  of  the  modern  Greek  Church  is  the  same 
as  to  mode  as  that  described  by  Severus.  Dr.  Nast  was 
one  of  the  most  eminently  learned  German  scholars  of 
this  country.  In  his  dissertation  on  baptism,  at  the  end 
of  his  Commentary  on  Matthew  (p.  657),  he  says:  "To 
this  very  day  baptism  is  administered  by  pouring,  not 
only  in  the  Greek  Church,  but  also  in  the  churches  of 
Asia  Minor." 

I  here  present  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness,  in 
the  person  of  Mr.  Joseph  HubKR,  a  ruling  elder  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  afterward  a  minister.     He  says : 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      275 

"I  resided  upward  of  three  years  in  the  capital  of  the 
Grand  Seignior's  dominions,  in  a  Greek  family  of  the  first 
respectability.  During  that  time  I  was  present  at  four 
baptisms — two  in  the  family  and  two  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood.  It  is  the  custom  among  the  Greeks  either 
to  have  their  children  baptized  publicly  in  their  churches, 
or  else  in  their  houses;  in  which  latter  case  the  parents 
invite  the  nearest  relations  and  neighbors;  and  after  the 
ceremony,  while  refreshments  pass  round,  the  father  gives 
to  each  person  present  a  token  of  witnesship  consisting  of 
a  small  piece  of  Turkish  money  through  which  a  hole  is 
pierced  and  a  piece  of  narrow  ribbon  is  inserted.  I  was 
invited  to  attend  the  four  above-mentioned  baptisms, 
and  I  still  have  in  my  possession  two  tokens;  the  other 
two  may  be  seen  in  Mrs.  McDowell's  museum  in  Danville. 
The  company  were  all  seated  on  the  sofas  around  the 
room.  A  table  stood  in  the  middle  with  a  basin  of  water 
on  it.  The  papa  or  priest  was  then  sent  for,  who,  upon 
entering  the  room,  was  received  by  the  father  of  the  in- 
fant and  led  to  the  baptismal  water,  which  he  consecrated 
by  a  short  prayer  and  sign  of  the  cross ;  then  the  mother 
presented  to  him  her  babe,  which  he  laid  on  his  left  arm, 
and,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  he 
thrice  dipped  his  hand  into  the  water  and  dropped  som^ 
OF  IT  ON  THE  child's  FOREHEAD,  giving  it  a  name. 

"I  may  remark  here  that  I  never  heard,  during  my 
stay  in  Constantinople,  of  adult  baptism,  nor  of  the  or- 
dinance being  performed  by  immersion  in  a  single  in- 
stance. Most  generally  infants  are  baptized  in  the 
churches.  Before  the  altar  stands  a  tripod  holding  a 
basin  of  consecrated  water  for  baptism." 

"The  Rev.  Pliny  Fisk,  missionary  to  Palestine  some 
years  ago,  says:  'I  went  one  morning  to  the  Syrian 
church  to  witness  a  baptism.     .     .     When  ready  for  the 


276      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

baptism,  the  font  was  uncovered,  and  a  small  quantity, 
first  of  warm  water  and  then  of  cold,  was  poured  into  it. 
The  child,  in  a  state  of  perfect  nudity,  was  then  taken  by 
the  bishop,  who  held  it  in  one  hand,  while  with  the  other 
he  anointed  the  whole  body  with  oil.  He  then  held  the 
child  in  the  font,  its  feet  and  legs  being  in  the  water,  and 

WITH  HIS  RIGHT  HAND  he  tOOk  Up  Water  AND  POURKD  IT 

ON  THE  CHILD,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost."     (Memoirs  of  Fisk,  p.  397.) 

"Dr.  B.  Kurtz,  in  his  first  tour  through  Europe  in 
1825,  says:  'We  ourselves  once  witnessed  the  baptism  of 
an  infant  in  the  great  cathedral  of  St.  Petersburg  by 
POURING.  And  so  Delyngius,  as  quoted  in  Booth's  'Pedo- 
Baptism  Examined,'  says:  'The  Greeks  at  this  day 
practice  a  kind  of  affusion.'  "  (Seiss  on  "Baptism," 
pp.  265,  266,  267.) 

This  is  certainly  sufficient  to  settle  the  question  as 
to  the  practice  of  the  modern  Greek  Church.  Instead  of 
the  Greek  Church  practicing  immersion,  it  practices  bap- 
tism just  as  it  did  in  the  early  centuries — the  candidate 
standing  or  kneeling  in  the  font  or  baptistery,  and  the 
administrator  pouring  the  water  on  the  head. 

15.  The  Waldenses  certainly  have  a  just  claim  to  be 
the  true  Church  of  God,  through  the  corruption  of  the 
Dark  Ages,  and  their  practice  must  have  great  weight  in 
the  historical  argument  on  this  subject.  Rev.  Mr.  BeJrT, 
a  Waldensian  minister,  informed  Rev.  S.  E.  Dwight,  in 
1825,  that  "the  Waldenses  had  always  baptized  their  in- 
fants, and  had  always  done  it  by  affusion."  (Chapman 
on  "Baptism,"  p.  263.) 

16.  The  Christians  of  Mesopotamia,  who  profess  to 
be  followers  of  John  the  Baptist,  baptize  in  rivers,  yet  by 
SPRINKLING.  The  missionary  Wolf,  in  his  Journal,  tells 
us  that  among  many  other  questions  he  inquired  of  them 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.       277 

respecting  their  mode  of  baptism,  and  was  answered: 
"The  priest  or  bishop  baptizes  children  thirty  days  old. 
They  take  the  child  to  the  banks  of  the  river;  a  relative 
or  friend  holds  the  child  near  the  surface  of  the  water, 
while  the  priest  sprinkles  the  element  upon  the  child, 
and  with  prayers  names  the  child."  (Journal,  Vol.  II., 
p.  311;  Watson's  "Institutes,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  654.)  "Mr. 
Wolf  asks:  'Why  do  they  baptize  in  rivers?'  Answer: 
'Because  St.  John  the  Baptist  baptized  in  the  river 
Jordan.'  The  same  account  was  given  afterward  by  one 
of  their  bishops  or  high  priests.  He  said:  'They  carry 
the  children,  after  thirty  days,  to  the  river;  the  god- 
father takes  the  child  to  the  river,  while  the  priest  sprink- 
les it  with  water.'  "     (Ibid.) 

Here  we  have  a  baptism  in  modern  times  in  the  river, 
and  yet  by  sprinkling!  These  Christians  claim  their 
descent  from  John  the  Baptist,  and  claim  that  they 
follow  his  example  in  baptizing.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact 
that  all  sects  of  Asiatic  Christians  baptize  by  affusion, 
whether  they  baptize  in  rivers  or  not. 

1 7.  Our  immersionist  friends  attempt  to  make  much 
out  of  the  words  used  by  Barnabas:  "Blessed  are  they 
who,  when  they  have  trusted  in  the  cross,  descend  in- 
to [or,  more  properly,  to]  the  water."  The  Armenian 
custom  of  baptizing,  all  things  considered,  will  give  us  a 
just  conception  of  the  practice  in  the  language  of  Bar- 
nabas. Dr.  Jarvis  speaks  of  it  is  follows:  "The  priest 
asks  the  name  of  the  child,  and  taking  him  in  his  left  arm 
and  supporting  him  with  his  right,  he  puts  him  into  the 
font,  his  head  being  out  of  the  water.  Then  with  the 
hollow  of  his  hand  he  pours  water  on  the  child  three 
times,"  etc.  (Report  to  Board  of  Missions  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church,  U.  S.) 


278      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

"In  addition  to  this,  we  observe  that  the  Armenian 
Liturgy  uses  the  language,  'Descending  into  the  water.' 
Yet  the  undeniable  idea  is  baptism  by  affusion."  (Ass., 
Vol.  II.,  p.  199;  Chapman  on  "Baptism,"  p.  210.) 

Here  the  custom  of  the  early  Church  of  baptizing  by 
AFFUSION,  while  the  candidate  was  standing  or  kneeling 
in  the  water,  as  represented  in  the  pictures  of  ancient 
baptism,  is  still  observed. 

18.  It  is  a  fact  of  history  that  during  the  whole  of 
the  Dark  Ages,  when  immersion  prevailed  as  the  common 
practice  (that  is,  trine  immersion;  for  that  was  all  the 
immersion  they  practiced),  the  validity  of  baptism  by 
affusion  was  never  called  in  question.  This  is  a  fact  so 
well  attested  by  prominent  writers  in  all  the  centuries 
from  Cyprian,  A.  D.  254,  to  Erasmus,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Reformation,  that  no  man  acquainted  with  the  ec- 
clesiastical history  will  call  it  in  question.  The  history 
of  the  Church  sets  aside  the  claims  of  immersion  and 
thoroughly  vindicates  the  practice  of  affusion. 

19.  But  the  question  is  asked,  "Did  not  the  law  of 
the  early  Church  prohibit  those  who  had  been  baptized 
by  affusion  from  entering  the  ministery?"  We  answer 
emphatically,  No.  No  such  law  was  ever  enacted,  and 
no  such  custom  ever  prevailed  in  the  Church.  Mr.  A. 
CAMPBELiy,  in  his  debate  with  Dr.  Rice,  said:  "Clinics 
or  unimmersed  persons  were  inhibited  holy  orders  by 
the  twelfth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Neocsesarea,  and 
consequently  were  ineligible  to  sacerdotal  functions." 
("Campbell  and  Rice  Debate,"  p.  260.) 

Mr.  Braden  took  the  same  position  in  his  debate  with 
me.  I  am  surprised  that  men  will  make  such  statements, 
when  they  must  know  that  they  are  not  true.  Truth  can 
never  be  sustained  by  falsehood.  Mr.  Rice  immediately 
produced  the  canon  in  question,  and  proved  that  the 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      279 

statement  was  not  true,  just  as  I  did  in  the  debate  with 
Mr.  Braden.  Such  reckless  statements  do  no  good  to  the 
cause,  nor  to  the  advocates  who  make  them,  and  they 
throw  suspicion  on  any  statements  they  may  make. 
Here  is  the  twelfth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Neocaesarea : 

"He  that  is  baptized  when  he  is  sick  ought  not  to  be 
made  a  priest  (for  his  coming  to  the  faith  is  not  voluntary, 
but  from  necessity) ,  unless  his  diligence  and  faith  do  prove 
commendable,  or  the  scarcity  of  men  fit  for  the  office  do 
so  require."     ("Campbell  and  Rice  Debate,"  p.  266.) 

It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  the  point  of  objection 
was  not  against  the  "mode"  of  his  baptism,  but  the  sus- 
picious character  of  sick-bed  conversions.  For  if  the 
man's  life  afterward  proved  the  sincerity  of  his  conver- 
sion, the  objection  was  removed,  and  he  might  be  ad- 
mitted to  holy  orders.  In  the  case  of  Novatian,  Mr. 
Braden  said:  "They  refused  to  ordain  him  because  he 
was  baptized  by  affusion  on  a  sick-bed."  But  I  proved 
that  was  false,  for  he  was  ordained,  and  afterward  be- 
came the  founder  of  the  sect  of  the  Novatians,  which 
constitute  the  first  link  in  the  chain  of  the  "Baptist 
succession,"  as  given  by  Orchard  in  his  "History  of  the 
Baptists."     He  says: 

"Novatian,  with  every  considerate  person,  was  dis- 
gusted with  the  hasty  admission  of  such  apostates  to 
communion,  and  with  the  conduct  of  many  pastors,  who 
were  more  concerned  about  numbers  than  purity  of  com- 
munion. Novatian  was  the  first  to  begin  a  separate  in- 
terest with  success,  and  which  was  known  for  centuries 
by  his  name.  One  Novatus  of  Carthage,  coming  to 
Rome,  united  himself  with  Novatian,  and  their  combined 
efforts  were  attended  with  remarkable  success.  It  is 
evident  that  many  were  previously  in  such  a  situation  as 
to   embrace   the   earliest   opportunity   of   uniting   with 


28o      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

churches  whose  communion  was  Scriptural.  Novatian 
became  the  head  pastor  (bishop)  in  the  new  interest,  and 
is  accused  of  the  crime  of  giving  birth  to  an  innumera- 
ble multitude  of  congregations  of  puritans  in  every  part 
of  the  Roman  Empire ;  and  yet  all  the  influence  he  exer- 
cised was  an  upright  example,  and  moral  suasion ;  these 
churches  flourished  until  the  fifth  century."  (Orchard's 
"Baptist  History,"  pp.  53-54.) 

Other  Baptist  writers  also  trace  the  "Baptist  suc- 
cession" to  the  Novatianists ;  and  yet  the  founder  of  this 
supposed  succession  was  never  baptized  himself,  ac- 
cording to  their  theory,  but  only  perfused,  or  sprinkled 
on  a  sick-bed ! 

But  it  may  be  asked,  "Did  not  Cornelius,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  object  to  Novatian  on  account  of  his  baptism  by 
affusion?"  We  answer.  No.  The  ground  of  Cornelius' 
objection  was  not  the  manner  of  his  baptism,  but  the 
character  of  the  man,  and  the  doubtfulness  of  his  con- 
version. Let  Eusebius  tell  the  story  of  Cornelius'  ob- 
jection. Cornelius  objected  to  Novatian  because  he  said : 
*' Indeed,  the  author  and  instigator  of  his  faith  was 
Satan,  who  entered  into  and  dwelt  in  him  a  long  time. 
Who,  aided  by  the  exorcists,  when  attacked  with  an  ob- 
stinate disease,  and  being  supposed  at  the  point  of  death, 
was  baptized  by  aspersion  in  the  bed  on  which  he  lay,  if, 
indeed,  it  is  proper  to  say  that  ONE  like  him  did  receive 
baptism.  But  neither  when  he  recovered  from  disease, 
did  partake  of  other  things,  which  the  rules  of  the  Church 
prescribe  as  duty,  nor  was  he  sealed  [in  confirmation  by 
the  bishop].  But  as  he  did  not  obtain  this,  how  could 
he  obtain  the  Holy  Spirit?"  (Eusebius,  "Ecclesiastical 
History,"  p.  226.) 

You  see  the  point  of  objection  was  not  his  baptism  by 
sprinkling,  but  on  account  of  his  character,  and  because 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism.      281 

he  had  not  received  confirmation,  and  therefore  Cornelius 
reasoned  he  had  not  received  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  could 
not  therefore  be  a  Christian.  Cornelius'  greatest  objec- 
tion to  Novatian,  however,  was  that  he  was  a  rival  for 
the  bishopric  of  Rome.  This  was  his  greatest  crime  in 
the  eyes  of  Cornelius. 

Our  immersionist  friends  claim  that  the  early  Church 
was  'an  immersionist  Church.  Do  modern  immersion- 
ists  baptize  sick  people  by  affusion?  Nay  verily.  This 
proves  that  the  ancient  immersionists  did  not  belong  to 
the  same  Church  with  modern  immersionists,  and  that 
they  did  not  have  the  same  views  on  baptism. 

This  was  not  the  only  point  of  difference  between 
them.  The  ancient  immersionists  immersed  their  can- 
didates as  naked  as  they  were  born.  They  claimed  that 
baptism  was  a  washing  of  the  body,  not  of  the  clothes, 
and  hence  they  divested  them  of  all  their  garments. 
There  is  no  fact  of  history  more  fully  proven  than  this,  as 
we  have  shown  by  Dr.  Robinson,  their  own  historian. 

The  single  dip  was  unknown  to  the  ancient  immer- 
sionists. It  took  three  dips  with  them  to  constitute  onK 
immersion!  With  some  of  them  the  three  dips  repre- 
sented the  three  Persons  in  the  Trinity,  with  others  they 
represented  the  three  days  that  Jesus  lay  in  the  tomb. 
They  were  not  agreed  among  themselves  as  to  the  import 
of  their  three  dips.  All  these  facts  prove  that  the  ancient 
immersionists  belonged  to  a  totally  different  school  from 
modern  immersionists,  and  that  they  did  not  regard  the 
practice  of  modem  immersionists  as  baptism  at  all. 
They  differed  from  modern  immersionists  in  another  es- 
sential point :  They  all  admitted  the  validity  of  baptism 
by  affusion.  They  could  not  have  held  that  immersion 
was  essential  to  baptism  and  admitted  and  practiced  bap- 
tism by  affusion,  as  we  know  they  did  by  the  most  in- 
—19— 


282      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism, 

disputable  testimony  of  the  whole  history  of  the  Church. 
These  old  immersionists  must  be  ruled  out  of  the  succes- 
sion— they  were  not  sound  in  the  faith;  they  were  cor- 
rupters of  the  sacred  ordinance,  and  traitors  to  the  cause 
of  immersion  once  delivered  by  somebody  to  the  im- 
mersionist  saints. 

20.  But  the  question  may  be  asked:  "How  came 
immersion  to  be  the  general  practice  of  the  Church,  or  a 
large  part  of  it,  during  the  Dark  Ages?"  Immersionists 
say:  "We  can  see  how  persons  could  substitute  sprink- 
ling for  immersion,  but  we  cannot  see  how  they  could  sub- 
stitute immersion  for  sprinkling." 

(i)  We  remark:  In  ritualism,  the  uniform  ten- 
dency of  the  human  mind,  and  under  every  form  of  re- 
ligion, has  been  from  the  simple  to  the  complex  or  elab- 
orate. There  is  no  exception  to  this  rule.  Wherever 
the  spirit  of  vital  piety  begins  to  wane,  then  the  forms, 
ceremonies,  and  sacraments  become  more  elaborate.  To 
the  simple  forms  of  worship  in  the  primitive  Church  there 
soon  began  to  be  additions  made,  to  make  the  worship 
more  impressive,  and  to  find  symbolical  meanings  to 
everything  connected  with  the  worship  of  the  Church,  or 
the  plain  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God.  We  see  how 
largely  this  tendency  was  developed  in  the  second  cent- 
ury, in  the  Similitudes'^of  Hermas  and  the  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas, and  in  the  writings  of  all  the  early  fathers. 

In  the  apostolic  age  the  rites  of  and  worship  of  the 
Church  were  simple  and  plain.  We  find  no  vestments  or 
gorgeous  ritual.  The  rite  of  baptism  was  simple,  and  was 
always  administered  on  the  spot  where  the  conversions 
took  place,  whether  in  the  court  of  the  Temple,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  or  in 
the  house,  as  of  Paul  and  Cornelius'  household ;  or  in  the 
jail,  as  in  the  case  of  the  jailer.     No  running  about  to 


The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism,      283 

find  the  facilities  for  baptism,  as  they  did  not  have 
churches  furnished  with  baptisteries.  The  faciUties  for 
baptism  were  always  at  hand.  In  the  next  century  we 
find  them,  as  Justin  Martyr  tells  us,  going  to  a  place 
where  there  is  water,  that  the  baptism  might  be  admin- 
istered, while  the  candidate  stood  or  kneeled  in  the 
water,  as  Justin  tells  us  it  was  done  by  sprinkling,  and 
as  the  pictures  of  that  period  show. 

In  the  third  century  we  have  the  elaborate  ritual  of 
baptism,  vestments,  etc.,  given  by  TertuUian,  with  three 
mmersions  preparatory  to  baptism,  all  of  which  he  tells 
us  had  been  added  by  tradition — not  one  of  which  could 
be  found  in  the  Scriptures!  Baptism  was  not  instituted 
by  tradition,  but  by  the  command  of  Christ;  while  the 
immersions  and  the  other  things  were  added  by  Tradi- 
tion to  make  the  simple  rite  of  sprinkling  more  impres- 
sive. Remember,  Tertullian  tells  us,  in  his  treatise  on 
"Baptism":  "We  are  dipped,  and  then  amid  a  few 
words  we  are  sprinkled."  The  dipping  was  not  the 
baptism,  for  the  baptismal  formula  was  not  used  with  it, 
but  with  the  sprinkling  ! 

We  do  not  know  how  long  this  practice  continued, 
until  the  immersion  usurped  the  place  of  the  proper  bap- 
tism, but  we  know  it  was  after  the  time  of  Eusebius ;  for, 
as  we  have  seen,  while  they  had  large  baptisteries  in  con- 
nection with  their  churches  at  that  time,  yet  the  baptism 
proper  was  performed  by  affusion,  as  he  tells  us  in  his 
Panegyric  on  the  restoration  of  the  Church  of  Tyre. 

The  immersion  which  was  preparatory  to  baptism 
did  not  usurp  the  place  of  baptism  itself,  which  was  al- 
ways performed  by  affusion,  as  represented  in  all  the 
pictures  of  baptism  that  have  come  down  to  us  for  the 
first  thousand  years  of  the  Christian  era;  nor  until  the 
design  of  baptism  had  been  perverted  from  its  Scriptural 


284      The  Scriptural  Mode  of  Christian  Baptism. 

import  as  a  sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  purification  of  the 
heart  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  the  unscript- 
ural  import  of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  our  lyord, 
and  this  did  not  take  place  until  several  centuries  after 
Christ.  In  the  earlier  Christian  writers,  as  Justin  Martyr, 
Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  TertuUian,  baptism 
held  its  Scriptural  import,  in  so  much  that  it  is  called 
by  them  rkgKnbraTion  ;  not  that  they  regarded  it  as 
the  REAL  regeneration — that,  they  held,  could  be  accom- 
plished only  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  baptism  with  them 
was  the  symbolical  regeneration.  Cyprian  was  so  clear 
and  strong  on  this  point  that  he  held  without  the  presence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  there  could  be  no  baptism. 

But  when  the  fathers  discovered  in  the  three  immer- 
sions preparatory  to  baptism  the  symbol  of  the  three- 
days  burial  of  Christ  in  the  tomb,  baptism  became  the 
symbol  of  death — not  of  life,  as  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  in  the  early  fathers;  then  the  symbol  of 
LIFE  was  discontinued  in  many  places,  and  the  symbol  of 
DEATH  was  substituted  in  its  place.  But  during  all  these 
ages  of  darkness  and  superstition  the  Scriptural  mode  and 
design  was  retained  in  many  places,  as  we  have  seen,  and 
its  validity  never  called  in  question.  As  the  darkness 
and  superstition  gave  way  before  the  light  of  truth  the 
Scriptural  mode  again  became  dominant  in  the  Church, 
and  the  Reformation  restored  it  again  to  its  proper  place 
and  design  in  the  Church  of  God.  These  are  the  facts  of 
ecclesiastical  history  concerning  the  mode  of  baptism,  and 
they  cannot  be  gainsaid  nor  set  aside. 


The  ]^nd. 


Princeton  Theological   Seminary   Libraries 


1    1012  01196  7132 


DATE  DUE 


HIGHSMITH  #45230 


Prtnt»(J 
In  USA 


